Altare Dei

Goodnight, Capitalism.

2009-03-31T22:11:00.000-07:00

Well, it's happened. The government has decided that it has the constitutional ability to control the earnings of private employees of private businesses based on the governments idea of what is fair and what goals a worker should meet. Sounds nice and utopian.

Introducing the Pay for Performance Act of 2009.

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION NOT BASED ON PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.

(a) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards- Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (

12 U.S.C. 5221

) is amended by redesignating subsections (e) through (h) as subsections (f) through (g), and inserting after subsection (d) the following:

‘(e) Prohibition on Executive Compensation Not Based on Performance Standards-Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘(1) PROHIBITION- No financial institution that has received or receives a capital investment under this title, or with respect to the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Federal Home Loan Montage Corporation, or a Federal home loan bank, under the amendments made by section 1117 of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, may, while that capital investment remains outstanding, make a compensation payment to any executive or employee under any pre-existing compensation arrangement, or enter into a new compensation payment arrangement, if such compensation payment or compensation payment arrangement--Comments Close Comments Permalink

‘(A) provides for compensation that is unreasonable or excessive, as defined in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2); orComments Close Comments Permalink

‘(B) includes any bonus, retention payment, or other supplemental payment that is not directly based on performance-based measures set forth in standards established by the Secretary in accordance with paragraph (2).

So the obvious question is, who precisely gets to decide how much money is too much and what performance is satisfactory and which is not? That would be the secretary. Who's that? The tax cheat Timothy Geithner.

So if you run a corporation that is "too big to fail" and the government decides it needs to save you from yourself, Tim Geithner, who may have zero experience with your particular business, can tell you how to run it, how much you pay your employees to do it, and how much money you're allowed to make from it. The best part is it's retroactive. It overwrites any previous agreement, practically forcing companies to violate contracts with special payment arrangements. And nowhere is it limited only to the "Wallstreet elite" that everyone loves to hate.

This only applies to businesses that have received TARP money. For now.

But if the government can snap its fingers and decide to invade a business and dictate how its run and how much money it can make and spend, what is there constitutionally to keep them out of every inch of the private sector for any reason they decide is "dire" enough?

It only one small step for the government to decide you're too big to fail and by force "saves you from yourself."

May God comfort the souls of those who gave their lives to protect the people from the tyranny of government.

Brick By Brick

2009-03-13T01:03:00.000-07:00

I'm pleased to say that my mother's parish is now starting to implement latin into the liturgy. So far they have the sanctus and the agnus dei, in addition to the greek kyria which they have been using for many years now.

There is still a way to go, and many seemed lost during all of it (even though it was taked straight out of the hymnal), little by little it is quite easy to adapt and enjoy a fuller Catholic identity. One needs not stop there, but also the gloria, pater noster, and even teh credo can be added as well, according to the wishes of the Holy Father that the people know how to say the common prayers in latin.

I know that to many this is just a very small grassroots victory, if anything at all. But I grew up at this parish, I've seen all of its developments as well as detriments. This is a good step and although small, we must start somewhere.

Vatican II Infallible?

2009-02-10T22:19:00.000-08:00

I believe that VII has the authority of the ordinary Magisterium, but chose not to invoke the authority of the extraordinary. This is why:

First we have a statement from Paul VI froma general audience. The original is on Vatican.va but unfortunately I can't read italian, so I must rely on a translation:

Quote:

"In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it avoided any extraordinary statements of dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility, but it still provided its teaching with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium which must be accepted with docility according to the mind of the Council concerning the nature and aims of each document" (Paul VI, General Audience of 12 January 1966).

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pa...660112_it.html

This tells me that VII chose not to teach form the extraordinary Magisterium but from the ordinary, which requires docility and assent to its authority but is not required belief for salvation like a dogma is. This is not to say that it couldn't have taught from the extraordinary Magisterium, it most surely could have. But For reasons known to pope Paul VI they didn't.

Then there is this statement from that clarification on "subsistit" that I found interesting:

Quote:

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?

Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bu...NGUA%20INGLESE

This sounds to me like the purpose of the council was to treat pre-existing decrees that had already been made. I think this may be why they refrained from any new dogmas because the purpose was to treat already-existing ones. Basically renewed argumentation and reasoning behind the existing decrees.

And I also read this on Newadvent:

Quote:

What teaching is infallible?

A word or two under this head, summarizing what has been already explained in this and in other articles will suffice.

As regards matter, only doctrines of faith and morals, and facts so intimately connected with these as to require infallible determination, fall under the scope of infallible ecclesiastical teaching. These doctrines or facts need not necessarily be revealed; it is enough if the revealed deposit cannot be adequately and effectively guarded and explained, unless they are infallibly determined.

As to the organ of authority by which such doctrines or facts are determined, three possible organs exist. One of these, the magisterium ordinarium, is liable to be somewhat indefinite in its pronouncements and, as a consequence, practically ineffective as an organ. The other two, however, are adequately efficient organs, and when they definitively decide any question of faith or morals that may arise, no believer who pays due attention to Christ's promises can consistently refuse to assent with absolute and irrevocable certainty to their teaching.

But before being bound to give such an assent, the believer has a right to be certain that the teaching in question is definitive (since only definitive teaching is infallible); and the means by which the definitive intention, whether of a council or of the pope, may be recognized have been stated above. It need only be added here that not everything in a conciliar or papal pronouncement, in which some doctrine is defined, is to be treated as definitive and infallible. For example, in the lengthy Bull of Pius IX defining the Immaculate Conception the strictly definitive and infallible portion is comprised in a sentence or two; and the same is true in many cases in regard to conciliar decisions. The merely argumentative and justificatory statements embodied in definitive judgments, however true and authoritative they may be, are not covered by the guarantee of infallibility which attaches to the strictly definitive sentences -- unless, indeed, their infallibility has been previously or subsequently established by an independent decision.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

But as we heard earlier, VII did not and chose not to make any of those "definitive sentences". An independent decision was made not to invoke the charism of infallibility but a decision not to. What have left is argumentation and reasoning treating pre-existing decrees. The decrees may be infallible, but the reasoning and argumentation are not. But decrees were not part of the council.

So in conclusion, it is clear to me at least that the documents of VII do not enjoy the charism of infallibility. (Because it was decided not to be invoked, and the charism does not extend to argumentation and reasoning behind a teaching) So in a strict sense it is possible, but unlikely, for them to contain blatant error. But there is no guarantee that teachings will be in the most precise language, either. (Which of course opens the door to playing fast and loose with meanings to, say, support a liberal agenda maybe?)

I look at it this way: as far as clarity is concerned with teaching, the Church doesn't promise us a banquet all the time, only that we will not starve. Sometimes the clarity is great sometimes it could be better. But it can never be outright wrong.

Does that make sense? What do you think?

Wow, I thought it was a CATHOLIC health provider...

2009-02-09T20:03:00.000-08:00

My wife and I are enrolled in AHCCCS health care. Basically state-healthcare. Trust me, if I could afford a policy I'd jump at it. I'd rather have a mammogram than to deal with the Department of Economic Security every six months. And yes, I pay my taxes. Keep in mind that we just had our third daughter in August.

This is from the "About Us" page on the mercy care website:

Southwest Catholic Health Network (SCHN) was established in 1985 as a not-for-profit managed care corporation sponsored by Catholic Healthcare West and Carondelet Health Network. SCHN, doing business as Mercy Care Plan, has managed health care for people in Arizona for more than 20 years, including those with special needs.

That said, we got a letter in the mail from Mercy Care, the allegedly Catholic plan available through AHCCCS. This notice reads as follows:

Dear Mercy Care Plan Member:

As a member of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), you may get family planning services at no cost to you. Talk to your doctor to find out what services are best for you. A list of services is attached.

The attachment reads:

Unprotected Sex is Dangerous!

Did you know that birth control is provided to AHCCCS member at no cost?

- If you are having sex, using birth control may keep you from getting pregnant.

- Using condoms and spermicidal foams, jellies or creams may help prevent some diseases that you can get by having sex.

- Get tested for sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).

It also lists:

AHCCCS also provides the following family planning services:

-Natural Family Planning

- Birth control pills

- The morning after pill

- Depo-Provera

-IUDs

- Cervical rings

- Spermicidal foams, jellies and creams

- Diaphrams

- Sterilization

- Testing for sexually transmitted diseases

I guess this 'Catholic' organization really wants us having more children don't they? Mortal sin be damned.

The Joys of Labeling

2009-02-04T15:29:00.000-08:00

On a particular Catholic forum I was discussing how it is wrong to call Bp. Williamson a holocaust denier when he did no such thing. Of course everyone there was. The topic shifted around and I mentioned that I thought it was wrong how the Jews of today exploit their victim status for political gain and how that craps on the memories of the Jews, gypsies, Catholics, and soviets that suffered and died. The accusation of anti-semitism followed quickly soon after, and I said that Williamson doesn't owe an apology for disagreement the same as Geert Wilders or Salman Rushdie don't owe apologies to muslims for disagreeing either.

I received and "infraction" on this forum for insulting, vulgar, and possible anti-semitic language because I failed to capitalize the word"Jew". You heard me right. Nevermind that I didn't capitalize "gypsies" or "muslims," it was only an insult in reference to "jews." I was accused of anti-semitism by the moderators.

So watch that shift-key folks! There's no telling when the NAACP, NOW, HRC, or the ADL gestapo is gonna come for you with their tissue-paper-feelings and pitchforks.

Unbelievable.

EWTN Update:

2009-02-02T20:14:00.000-08:00

EWTN Picks Up the Ball NBC Dropped in Refusing to Air Pro-life Commercial During Super Bowl

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – See the pro-life commercial NBC refused to air during the Super Bowl on EWTN Global Catholic Network this Sunday Feb. 1, beginning at 5:30 p.m. ET and continuing through midnight ET.

The commercial, sponsored by Fidelis and catholicvote.com, centers around the theme: “Life: Imagine the Potential.” It will begin airing during “Faith Bowl II,” an annual Family Theatre made-for-television special, which analyzes the role that the Catholic/Christian Faith plays in professional and collegiate sports. This year, Major League Baseball’s Mark Loretta of the Los Angeles Dodgers will guest along with former professional soccer player Antonio Soave.

The commercials will continue throughout EWTN’s Sunday evening lineup, including the shows with popular series Hosts Father Benedict Groeschel and Father John Corapi, and will conclude at midnight ET.

EWTN also aired this powerful commercial several times during its extensive coverage of the March for Life; an event which has been boycotted by virtually every mainstream media outlet in the country, despite the fact that every year it is Washington, D.C.’s largest march.

The commercial can also be viewed on EWTN’s pro-life webpage, www.ewtn.com/prolife, after 6 p.m. Friday, Jan. 30, and, of course, on www.catholicvote.com.

What follows are the words that flash across the screen over a picture of an ultrasound during the must-see pro-life commercial: “This child’s future is a broken home, he will be abandoned by his father, his single mother will struggle to raise him, despite the hardships he will endure, this child will become the 1st African-American president. Life, imagine the potential.”

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 28th year, is available in over 148 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN, is the largest religious media network in the world.

Fairweather Intellectual Honesty

2009-02-01T00:45:00.001-08:00

No doubt you have heard about Bp. Williamson's recent remarks regarding the holocaust. No doubt you have seen headlines on the newssites, forums, and blogs like:

Holocaust denier bishop gagged

Bishops apologise for holocaust denier

SSPX superior to holocaust denier: Shut up!

Have any of you seen the video in which he made these remarks? Here it is, please watch the whole thing. It's only five minutes.

Did you notice any disparity between the headlines and his remarks? Any at all?

Nowhere in his statement did he deny the holocaust happened. He criticizes the figures and methods, but never here did he deny that it happened. Of course, bloggers and news scum will have you think different.

This is sending a real message to the people: "If you don't believe history as we tell it then you must be a denier."

Do I agree with Williamson about there only being a few hundred thousand dead, or that gas chambers were never used? No, there were probably many more than that. Even if he was right, does that make it any less horrible? But does he not have a right to dispute popularly held statistics? It seems not when it comes to the holocaust. I may not agree with him but calling for his head merely because he dares question popular belief is rediculous.

If this were any other issue his remarks would just pass away. But because his remarks call into question what people assume to be true and what is worn as a badge of victimhood nowadays, he's some kind of monster.

Don't get me wrong, it was a terrible tragedy that by any means necessary, saving collaboration with like evil, should be kept from happening ever again. But ask yourself, how often do you hear about the Catholics and gypsies that died as well in the holocaust? It wasn't until highschool that I heard that the nazis killed people other than jews. If you read the wiki article on the holocaust, there's a debate whether the term "holocaust" should refer to the nazi extermination of undesireables or just the extermination of the jews. I have a huge problem with this reasoning. What about the others? Do they not deserve to be victims because they are not jews?

Never will a child grow up not hearing about the jews' suffering at the hands of the nazis but it's rare for them to hear that anyone else suffered. Many, many non-jews suffered and died to them as well. No one cries for them. If the jews earned the right to wear the badge of victimhood then so did everyone else who was targetted. They were not the only ones who suffered.

I'm not trying to downplay the jews plight in the terrible period of history. I'm trying to emphasize the suffering of those who go unremembered, constantly overshadowed by the media's exaltation of the jews' plight. But by the media's standards, I too, am a holocaust denier because I dare criticize their version of it.

The jews are still God's people, and history has inflicted many punishments upon them because of that fact. But all loss of life to evil is to be mourned; jew, Catholic, gypsie, whatever. The difference between me and the media is that my mourning isn't drawn down religious lines, nor is it used to rally the people under my banner to yet again exploit an opportunity to let the Church have it, no matter how many half-truths I must use to do it.

Take another look at those headlines and ask yourself if that's true, or if they're just to draw readers, playing on emotion to win people to their side, exalting and exploiting at the same time the suffering the holocaust inflicted. Is it okay to lie about someone when they disagree with us? No one holds the media responsible for their lies. But in a single day their lies can destroy someone, never to be redeemed publicly again. (I give you the many false accusations of rape and molestation) Lies are printed on the front page whereas retractions and corrections are in tiny print in the back. But by then it's too late.

Even the Emperor Knows He's Naked

2009-01-30T00:23:00.000-08:00

Ever hear one of the neo-caths say that Vatican II (and the 'spirit' thereof) wasn't responsible for the sharp decline in the Church and its infection of modernism? It was the social upheaval of the sixties, they say, or some other crap. I would like you to read this article from TIME magazine, printed in 1967. Let's hear from the modernists themselves, from: The Triumph of Modernism (They don't make any illusions, do they?):

In the early 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church had its own secret police. A zealous Vatican functionary, Monsignor Umberto Benigni, set up a group of trusted clerical informers, called the Sodalitium Pianum, to spy on priests and even bishops suspected of heresy. [Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?]

The target of Benigni's agents was the heresy of modernism—a broad term encompassing the efforts of certain scholarly [heretical] priests and laymen to bring Catholic teaching into line with contemporary scientific and philosophic thought. [In other words, make the Church subject to to the world] In 1921, long after the leading modernists had been excommunicated, Pope Benedict XV sensibly [Unfortunately, rather] suppressed Benigni's spy ring. The memory of modernism has been kept alive, however, by a solemn oath against the heresy* that every Catholic priest since 1910 has had to take before receiving holy orders. Last week, Vatican sources reported, Pope Paul VI decided to abolish the oath-taking requirement [I wonder why...], which a generation of seminarians has viewed with bemusement if not contempt; in the future, priests will simply be required to make a general statement of support for the teachings of the church. [As in, nothing really binding or specific at all]

History's Backwater. Modernism flowered at a time when Catholicism seemed to be a backwater of intellectual history and the Pope was the intransigent "prisoner of the Vatican." By far the most famous modernist was Abbe Alfred Loisy [Lousy?] (1857-1940), a Frenchman, whose book The Gospel and the Church (1902) used the critical tools of modern Scriptural scholarship [AKA "Bullshit"] to justify the dogmatic development from primitive Christianity to the complex Catholicism of his time. In so doing, he conceded that the doctrines of the 20th century church were different from the simple faith of Jesus' first disciples—a judgment that Rome denounced as heretical. In his 1907 en cyclical, Pascendi, Pius X issued a formal condemnation of modernism as "the compendium of all heresies," making several allusions to Loisy's work; one year later, Loisy was excommunicated. [And God saw that it was good.]

In England, the modernist movement found a voice in Irish-born Jesuit [Aye, there's the rub.]George Tyrrell. A convert from Protestantism, Tyrrell proposed that the church restate its beliefs in the light of discoveries made by science and philosophy [How does one make a definite discovery in a science that has no means of evidence or testing?]—a view that Rome found no more palatable than the novelties of Loisy. Expelled from the Jesuits, [Wow, you gotta be bad if even the jesuits kick you out] Tyrrell was excommunicated in 1907; he refused to confess his errors, died two years later. Yet even Pius X was moved by Tyrrell's death. "Unlike most arch-heretics, he died a good Christian," the Pontiff was said to have told a friend.

At its peak of influence, modernism was an intellectual movement involving at most a few thousand avant-garde Catholics in France, Germany, England and Italy. [Basically, all the apostate countries of today] The church nonetheless moved to suppress it as if a phalanx of Luthers were in its midst. [Ever been to the teachers' lounge at a jesuit school?] Pius' encyclical Pascendi ordered that all seminary teachers who were tainted by the heresy be fired, required bishops to take other stern measures to eradicate the spiritual disease. [That's why he's a saint] Loyal Catholics suspected of involvement with the movement were forced to issue humiliating public denunciations of modernism. [These are the same people who call the Pledge of Allegiance humiliating as well]

Stunted Development. Some church historians now contend that the repressive measures of Pius X (who was proclaimed a saint in 1954) stunted Catholic intellectual development for a generation. [Good for him] Biblical experts were particularly suspect. For years Catholic exegetes were required to abide by the conservative judgments of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, set up at the beginning of the century; among its dicta was the ruling that Moses authored the Pentateuch—even though it contains an account of his death clearly penned centuries later. Not until Pius XII's 1943 encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, were Catholic Biblicists able to study Scripture with the same freedom enjoyed by their Protestant counterparts. [And thanks to them we have the NAB, RNAB, NRSV, etc. Yeah, nice job.]

Shortly before his death, Tyrrell wrote to a friend that "my failure and many another may pave the way for eventual success." [Boy, did they!] Today, Loisy's argument that the Bible must be scrutinized in the light of scholarship [Jerome, Challoner, Haydock, Knox, were not scholars?] is an accepted premise of Scripture experts; Tyrrell's proclamation that the church needs to restate its faith in the language and terms of [or rather "determined by"] modern man is a common place on the lips of Popes. Whatever their specific errors—and most of their writings look terribly dated today—the modernists have a fair claim to be regarded as genuine precursors of the Second Vatican Council.

From the lips of a modernist to my ears. Even the modernists recognize the vehicle for their agenda. Now if only everyone else would listen as well. It's amazing how neo-caths will do backflips and contortions of logic just so that nothing can be laid at the feet of the council. Perhaps it's just because those rose-colored glasses just go so well with those tie-dyed t-shirts and birkenstocks.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,837117-2,00.html

With a Humble and Contrite Heart...

2009-01-27T18:42:00.000-08:00

I graciously accept the august, The Lovely Award:

from the club-wielding man-of-the-loincloth Cavey over at The Catholic Cavemen. Here's a bit about the award:

“These blogs are exceedingly charming. These kind bloggers aim to find and be friends. They are not interested in self-aggrandizement. Our hope is that when the ribbons of these prizes are cut, even more friendships are propagated. Please give more attention to these writers. Deliver this award to eight bloggers who must choose eight more and include this cleverly-written text into the body of their award."

AND IT SEEMS ICED TEA WAS SPILT ON MY KEYBOARD AND THE COMPUTER DOESN"T KNOW I"M NOT PUSHING THE SHIFT KEY> I"LL NOMINATE OTHER WINNERS AFTER I TAKE THIS THING APART AND BLOW_DRY IT OUT> TIL NEXT TIME!

Finally, Justice

2009-01-24T17:45:00.000-08:00

Based on the faculties expressly granted to me by the Holy Father Benedict XVI, in virtue of the present Decree, I remit from Bishops Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson, and Alfonso de Galarreta the censure of latae sententiae excommunication declared by this Congregation on July 1, 1988, while I declare deprived of any juridical effect, from the present date, the Decree emanated at that time.

Upcomming Specials on EWTN

2008-12-18T17:55:00.000-08:00

EWTN's Christmas Specials To Include "The Star of Bethlehem" Documentary from "The Passion of the Christ" Producer

Irondale, AL (EWTN) – Christmas specials on EWTN Global Catholic Network this year include a new documentary proving the existence of the Star of Bethlehem from the producer of "The Passion of the Christ") as well as classics with stars such as Loretta Young, Christopher Plummer, Frankie Avalon, Snooky Larson, June Valli, Mario Lanza, and Rosalind Russell. There is literally something for everyone. Highlights include: (All times below are U.S. Eastern Time.)

The Star of Bethlehem

From "The Passion of the Christ" Producer Stephen McEveety comes a documentary that proves the existence of the Star of Bethlehem, whose existence has been debated for centuries by historians, scientists and scholars. "Either they believe the Star is true or they think it was made up by the early Church," says Texas A&"M Professor Rick Larson. "I took a different approach in my research and treated the Star as a mystery or puzzle, looking at the Bible and comparing the facts of Scripture with facts from science and history." (10 a.m. Dec. 21, 11 p.m. Dec. 25, 8 p.m. Dec. 27, 3 a.m. Dec. 28, 5:30 p.m. Dec. 29, 10:30 a.m. Dec. 31)

The San Juan Children's Choir Presents: Siempre Navidad (Always Christmas)

This festive concert, with music from around the world, displays the joyful spirit of Christmas in Puerto Rico. (30-minute version: 9 a.m. Dec. 20. 60-minute version: 6 p.m. Dec. 22 and 4 p.m. Dec. 27)

The Story of the Selfish Giant

A grandfather uses Oscar Wilde's timeless tale to unlock the true meaning of Christmas for his granddaughter. This is a charming story with a strong Christian message about the meaning of love and sacrifice. It is bound to become one of your Christmas favorites. (10:30 a.m. Dec. 20 and 4 p.m. Dec. 26).

The Chimes

Written by Charles Dickens and narrated by Derek Jacobi, this is the story of a poor and discouraged 19th Century porter. Chiming church bells magically transport him to the future where his hope is renewed. (4 p.m. Dec. 23 and 6 a.m. Dec. 27)

Loretta Young: 3 & 2 Please

Academy Awarding Winning Actress Loretta Young starts as "Sister Ann," a nun who brightens the lives of patients in a Catholic hospital at Christmas. (6:30 p.m. Dec. 21, 11 a.m. Dec. 23, 2:30 a.m. Dec. 26, and 2:30 a.m. Dec. 27)

The First Christmas

Narrated by Christopher Plummer, this colorful animated production tells the traditional story of the birth of Jesus. (4:30 p.m. Dec. 24, 11 a.m. Dec. 25, and 10:30 a.m. Dec. 27)

The Promise

A 1967 dramatization of the Annunciation and Nativity, followed by a brief discussion of the film by Father Patrick Peyton and Frankie Avalon. (2:30 p.m. Dec. 22, 3:30 a.m. Dec. 24, 5:30 a.m. Dec. 27, 3 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. Dec. 29)

Christopher Close-Up: Christopher Classic Christmas

Christopher Founder Father James Keller, M.M. celebrates Christmas with stars of yesteryear, including Snooky Larson, June Valli, Mario Lanza, Rosalind Russell and more. (6:30 a.m. Dec. 21, 9 p.m. Dec. 22, and 3 a.m. Dec. 24)

Catholic University of America Christmas Concert

This annual concert presents a brilliant blend of angelic voices and the wonderful sounds of the Christmas season. (11 p.m. Dec. 23 and 2 p.m. Dec. 25)

The World is Born: Christmas with the Louisville Chorus

The Louisville Chorus celebrates the sounds of the season in this special presentation of Christmas favorites. The choir performs in the historic St. Martin of Tours Church in Louisville, Kentucky. (10 p.m. Dec. 23, 2 p.m. Dec. 27, and 11 a.m. Jan. 1)

Dana: Our Family Christmas

Join Dana, her family and friends as they present an old-fashioned family Christmas. Hear the meaning of many traditional customs, and gather new ideas for you and your family. (9 a.m. Dec. 24 and 4:30 a.m. Dec. 27)

Solemn Mass at Midnight with Pope Benedict XVI (Live from Rome)

Solemnity of the Birth of Our Lord: Midnight Mass with the Holy Father from St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. (6 p.m. Dec. 24 (live), 8 a.m. Dec. 25, and 4 p.m. Dec. 25)

Choral Meditations and Solemn Mass of Christmas Eve from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (Live from Washington, D.C.)

From the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC, USA. (10 p.m. Dec. 24 (live))

Urbi et Orbi from Rome: Pope Benedict's Christmas Message to the World (Live)

From St. Peter's Square. Join the Holy Father for his inspiring Christmas Day message to the world on the celebration of Christ's birth. (6 a.m. (live) Dec. 25, 10 p.m. Dec. 25, 3 a.m. Dec. 26, and 5 p.m. Dec. 26)

EWTN Global Catholic Network, in its 27th year, is available in over 148 million television households in more than 140 countries and territories. With its direct broadcast satellite television and radio services, AM & FM radio networks, worldwide short-wave radio station, Internet website www.ewtn.com and publishing arm, EWTN, is the largest religious media network in the world.

Life Teen Founder Excommunicated

2008-12-15T17:40:00.000-08:00

Via Azcentral:

Dale Fushek, once one of the most powerful and popular priests in the Diocese of Phoenix, has been excommunicated.

Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted said the decision was the result of Fushek's role in the Praise and Worship Center, a new church that Fushek founded with another former priest, Mark Dippre.

The decision had nothing to do with Fushek's legal issues, where he faces trial for several misdemeanor counts of sexual misconduct, according to a statement by the Diocese of Phoenix.

Fushek and Dippre founded the church in November 2007, three years after Fushek was suspended from the priesthood for sexual misconduct issues.

Perhaps Life Teen will be suppressed as well, God willing.

A Rather Disturbing Headline

2008-12-15T15:04:00.000-08:00

From CNA:

Separation of Church and State is a sign of progress and freedom, explains Pope

Yeah, I know. But let's read a bit:

"This brief visit allows me to reaffirm that the Church is very aware that the distinction between what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, that is to say, the distinction between State and Church, is a part of the fundamental structure of Christianity,” he explained. ...

Not only does the Church acknowledge this separation, the Pontiff continued, but she considers it to be a “great progress for humanity and a fundamental condition for its freedom and for fulfilling its universal mission of salvation among the peoples." [This is where I must disagree. The state adopting the heresy of indifferentism cannot be "progress", whether formally or materially, It doesn't matter. The effect is the same.]

"At the same time, the Church feels the duty,” he went on, “of reawakening moral and spiritual forces in society, helping to make the will receptive to the demands of what is good.”

It is because of this that when the Church “recalls the value that fundamental ethical principles have” for private and public life, “she is in fact contributing to the guarantee and promotion of the dignity of the person and the well-being of society. In this sense, the Church “fulfills the true and proper co-operation that is sought between the State and Church,” he concluded.

He is of course correct on many points. The headline is very misleading. There is a distinction between Church and state. But the separation thereof, the state renouncing and its lukewarmness to the true religion, is a grave error. I understand that the separation of the state from a false religion does in fact serve to open the door to the true religion. But that does not remove the state's culpability of removing itself from the true religion. Is the possible doorway to save souls worth tolerating other states' apostasy? I'm not so sure. The nation of Malta has the one true faith as the state's official religion. And last I heard it's not regarded as a tyrannical state. I'm glad the Holy father did not cross the line in his words. It's too bad CNA did, though.

Please see Immortale Dei, Quanta Cura, and the Syllabus of Errors to clarify, I don't really feel like parsing them at the moment.

Bailout Double Standards

2008-12-11T16:15:00.000-08:00

Have you noticed the intense scrutiny the automakers are under by the government just to get 14B from the bailout fund? I recently heard that only 350B of the 700B bailout fund is left. That means 400B has already been given to the banks by Hank Paulson, Treasure Secretary. Who sets the rules as to which bank is or is not eligible for the money? Hank Paulson. Goldman Sachs had roughly 20B in equity in AIG (who received 120B), and could be up to as much as 40B. Goldman Sachs was already bailed out with 3B dollars in 2007. Who was CEO of Goldman Sachs? Hank Paulson. Lehman Brothers, equally in the tank and competitor of Goldman Sachs, was refused any bailout cash. By Who? Hank Paulson.

So why is it that it is so easy to dole out 400B to Paulson's Friends with zero oversight, yet it is such a chore for the automakers to get 14B and with every company under a microscope? I was against this from the start. Already we can see the palm-greasing and kick-backing. The biggest fraud in history, and we get to pay for it.

Just to give some perspective, in 2003 we invaded a country, destroyed its infrastructure, replaced its government and rebuilt what we destroyed and then some. All with the most advanced military in the world. (Technology costs money, people) Cost: 610B dollars. 400B has already been given to the banks and what have we to show for it? The dems railed against Bush for fiscal irresponsibility for the war. Yet we have spent two-thirds in two months what the war has cost us in almost six years. And they want to spend more! Harry Reid said that the American people need someone to look out for them with the spending in Iraq Now it seems the only ones looking out for us is the GOP. Who's being irresponsible now? At least we have a democratic Iraq to show for our efforts.

Blasphemy in the Netherlands

2008-12-08T13:02:00.000-08:00

AMSTERDAM, Netherlands — A Dutch gay group said Monday it has planned a "Pink Christmas" festival for the first time in Amsterdam, featuring a manger stall with two Josephs and two Marys.

Other attractions in the 10-day festival include parties, an open-air market, gay-themed films, an ice skating rink and religious services on Dec. 25.

ProGay group chairman Frank van Dalen said Monday the event is intended to increase the choices for homosexual men and women during the Christmas holiday week.
"Right now, there's not much to do," he said. [I have an idea: go to Church! Last I checked, homosexuals weren't banned from celebrating Christmas. It is not religion that marginalizes them, they marginalize themselves. If they choose not to participate, why should we feel sorry?]

The festival will also encourage people to think about homosexuality and religion, Van Dalen added.

Some Christian groups protested. The organization Christians for Truth said the idea "mocks the core concepts of Evangelism."

"By putting Joseph and Mary down as homosexuals, a cracked human fantasy is being tacked on to history from the Bible," the organization said in a statement urging the city and organizers to cancel the event.

I wonder what would happen if Christians decided to make a public display that attacked and ridiculed homosexuality, oh wait, that's a hate crime. Perhaps this isn't so bad, maybe it's a show of faith since an act of Divine Intervention like the Nativity is really the only way these bigots could possibly procreate. What more do you expect from the San Francisco of Europe?

Link

He Went Thattaway!

2008-12-08T12:20:00.000-08:00

From Foxnews:

Security forces [Pakistani Forces] overran a militant camp on the outskirts of Pakistani Kashmir's main city and reportedly seized the mastermind of the attacks that shook India's financial capital last month, two officials said Monday.

The raid was Pakistan's first known response to U.S. and Indian demands for the arrest of the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks, which have sharply raised tensions between South Asia's two nuclear-armed powers.

Backed by a helicopter, the troops grabbed Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi among at least 12 people taken Sunday in the raid on the riverbank camp run by the banned group Laskhar-e-Taiba in Pakistani Kashmir, the officials said. There was a brief clash in the camp near Muzaffarabad before the militants were subdued, the officials said.

Anyone else find it strange that they knew exactly where the plotter was mere days after the attacks? It couldn't be that they knew all along and only after India threatened to strike Pakistan that they decided to pony up the info, could it? I wonder what other persons hiding in the rural Al Qaeda caves they could help us find...

Remember folks, Pakistan is our friend and ally. I also have some beachfront property in Florida I'd like to sell you too...

Christmas Under Attack in North Carolina

2008-12-07T16:00:00.000-08:00

I fear this is the beginning. Every year this kind of thing gets worse and worse. Please pray for the Caveman and the Cannonball.

This from Foxnews.com:

Christmas trees that have graced the two main libraries at the University of North Carolina won't be displayed this year, after numerous complaints, The Charlotte Observer reported.

The trees have stood in the lobbies of Wilson and Davis libraries at the Chapel Hill campus during December. This year, they are being kept in storage.

Sarah Michalak, the associate provost for university libraries, told the newspaper that she made the decision after several years of complaints from employees and others.

“We strive in our collection to have a wide variety of ideas,” she said. “It doesn't seem right to celebrate one particular set of customs.”

It is unusual for a public library to house a display representing one religion, according to the Durham County library system's deputy director Catherine Mau.

Michalak, who has been the head librarian at UNC for the past four years, told the Observer that at least a dozen employees have complained about the Christian display. Students, however, have been mum on the trees.

Censorship for fear of hurting feelings. Fear to recognize the largest religion in the United States to seek acceptance and praise from the world. Social kingship of Christ be damned.

To Boldly Go... And Do Nothing.

2008-12-06T00:51:00.000-08:00

Any Star Trek fans? Guess what I just noticed:

The seal of the United Federation of Planets:

The seal of the United Nations:

No wonder the Federation was a bunch of impotent liberal wussies.

Where's the headquarters of the Federation? Oh yeah, San Francisco. I should've known.

Bearing False Witness

2008-10-15T19:23:00.000-07:00

I'm listening to the presidential debate at the moment. I just finished listening ot their views on Roe V Wade. McCain actually brought up the fact that as a state senator of Illinois, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would require medical care, and legal "personage" to infants that survive a botched abortion. Obama replied that it was because BAIPA would be used as a tool to undermine the 'right' to choose, because there was no language in the bill to protect it. Check this and this out from Lifesite:

"The former nurse of Christ Hospital also dispels the myth, propagated by Obama and his campaign, that Obama only voted against the bill because it did not include language clarifying that the bill would have no effect on legal abortion; this language was found in the federal version of the legislation.

However, observes Stanek, "As chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee in 2003, he stopped the identical wording from being introduced." This fact was confirmed recently by the National Right to Life Committee, which found and made public documents proving, beyond a doubt, that Obama voted against a version of the bill that included the abortion-protecting language."

Obama is a liar.

Next Obama said that he would support a ban on late-term and partial birth abortions. Check this out from www.ontheissues.org

"In 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding."

So now he says he would support such legislation, yet voted against it.

And this from the Gospel of Satan--er I mean, the New York Times:

On Supreme Court Upholding Partial-Birth Abortion Ban

CRITICIZED THE SUPREME COURT DECISION

"I strongly disagree with today's Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women. As Justice Ginsburg emphasized in her dissenting opinion, this ruling signals an alarming willingness on the part of the conservative majority to disregard its prior rulings respecting a woman's medical concerns and the very personal decisions between a doctor and patient."

So before he criticized the ban, but now he supports it...

Again, Obama is a liar.

Some Perspective

2008-09-21T18:51:00.000-07:00

Number of Jews killed under Hilter between 1933-1945: about 6,000,000
Deaths per year: 500,000

Number of children killed under Roe vs. Wade in the United States since 1973: 48,589,993
Deaths per year: 1,388,286

'nuff said.

Unitas '08

2008-09-18T20:50:00.000-07:00

I was reading a post over at The Lair, and it reminded me of an idea I had when illegals were amassing with Mexican flags a few miles away and China started poisoning American kids with lead.

This is the idea:

Take all product imports out of China and put the production in Mexico. If they can ban outsourcing to Cuba for being Communist then they can do it to China too. This will create jobs and improve the economy of Mexico and ultimately improve the quality of life for the average Mexican citizen, as well as stop the export of American wealth to a brutal communist nation that hates our guts and terrorizes it own people.

Stop all oil imports from the middleast and bump up production from Mexico. Again, this will create jobs and ultimately improve the quality of life for the average Mexican citizen. This will also stop the export of American wealth to countries that hate our guts and fund terror against us and their own people.

Then I started thinking of other things:

Stop exporting American oil. We drill our own oil to sell it off just to buy it again from someone else. That's stupid.

Drill more American oil.

Why make the Mexicans happy? To lessen the incentive to make illegal entry into our country and defraud taxpayers. Plus that's the "teach a man to fish" approach to humanitarian aid rather than "giving a man a fish" in the forms of amnesty and subsidies. If the situation in Mexico stays bad then there will always be a reason to risk life and limb to come here. If the situation was improved then there wouldn't be so much of an incentive to take that risk. Plus everyone can keep their beloved NAFTA intact.

Build a friggin' nuclear reactor or fifty. We harnessed the power of the atom, what, 70 years ago? Yet there's been no new reactor in 20 years? Less than 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear power. Yet the majority comes from coal. Coal, people. We are in the 21st century, right?

Ban the sale of partial loans to foreign banks. Keep American wealth in America.

Ban the outsourcing of of vital resource processing to foreign countries. That only makes our country beholden to theirs.

Limit foreign shareholding of American companies to 49%. We don't need a foreign shareholder bloc telling an American business what to do.

Cap the interest rates on credit loans. Y'know HSBC offers the highest interest rates on their savings accounts? That's because their credit holders pay for it. My mother has 700+ credit and pays 24%.

Cap monetary punitive damages in lawsuits. Ever wonder why insurance policies are so high? Because you're paying off settlements and judgements driven up by the greed of lawyers.

Offer tax credits on private health insurance, and cap the per-person rates for insurance. I'll be honest, I'm on state health insurance. Not because I want to be, but because I have to be. It sucks. Bad. I can't afford private insurance so I have to be punished with dealing with the Department of Economic Security. Due to the subsidy tax deficit created by illegals and non-tax-payers the state pays the least it can get away with. Which is reflected in a palpable lack of quality and hassle-free-ness. They should rename D.E.S. to P.I.T.A.

Have the FDIC offer incentives to banks to pick up loans from banks that have closed. The bank that handled the loan for the family business went under back in '87. It fell to the FDIC and they wanted their money in full. No other banks wanted to take it. If someone didn't finally pick it up, three days later the FDIC would have auctioned off my parents' and uncle's homes. They even put "For Auction" signs in the front yards while they were still living in them.

I'm sure there's a lot more stuff i can think of. Perhaps later.

In a World with No Children...

2008-09-10T00:42:00.000-07:00

...there's no need for a back seat.

No wonder it's so popular in Europe.

Impracticality and novelty of this kind smacks of decadence.

The One True Faith?

2008-08-20T01:36:00.000-07:00

A recent Pew Research Poll:

79% of Catholics say many religions can lead to eternal life.

77% of Catholics say there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of Catholicism.

Compare this with the 70% of Catholics that do not believe in the True Presence, and the 61% that think contraception is a-ok, and the 77% of American Catholics that don't think abortion is wrong in all cases... (Link)

I think you see where I'm headed. Too bad they don't see where they're headed.

I wonder what the answers would have been 40 or 50 years ago. Nevermind, I know what they would have said, "That's a stupid question." They'dve told me. But 40 or 50 years ago?! By golly, that's practically the stone age! We're much more civilized and enlightened now.

I just figured out today that an average of 1.39mil children have died per year from abortion since 1973. On top of that, 35% of Americans want to remove "God" from our currency.

We hate our religion, we hate God, we hate our country, we hate our duty to our children...

Are we really any more civilized?

I remember an oft-used quote of Bishop Fulton Sheen that goes something like: "We need a Church that is right, not when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong."

It's just too bad those chosen to guide us are failing against the tide of the world. God help us.

Why California Will Fall into the Ocean

2008-07-17T00:05:00.000-07:00

Major U.S. city officially condemns Catholic Church
Instructs members to defy 'Holy Office of Inquisition'

From WordNetDaily

Resolution 168-08, passed unanimously by the City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors two years ago, also accused the Vatican of being a "foreign country" meddling with and attempting to "negatively influence (San Francisco's) existing and established customs."
It said of the church's teaching on homosexuality, "Such hateful and discriminatory rhetoric is both insulting and callous, and shows a level of insensitivity and ignorance which has seldom been encountered by this Board of Supervisors."

As WND reported, Resolution 168-08 was an official response to the Catholic Church's ban on adoption placements into homosexual couple households, issued by Cardinal William Levada of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

The board's resolution urged the city's local archbishop and the Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to defy the Vatican's instructions, concluding with a spiteful reminder that the church authority that issued the ban was known 100 years ago as "The Holy Office of the Inquisition."

The resolution also took a shot at Levada, the former archbishop of San Francisco, saying, "Cardinal Levada is a decidedly unqualified representative of his former home city, and of the people of San Francisco and the values they hold dear."

This is why California will fall into the ocean.

I'm no geologist. But judging by the proximity of Than Franthithco to the fault line, when the "Big One" comes, SF is pretty much toast.

Think of all the bad things that have happened not only to us, but everywhere across the globe. God does not will tragedies upon mankind, but we call can agree that nothing is coincidence. God certainly does allow them to happen. Even in the OT, He allowed terrible things to happen to his beloved people.

The warning signs have been around for years. No one listens. But in the back of their mind they all fear "The Big One".

Learning from the Past

2008-07-12T15:17:00.000-07:00

Saudi Arabia has plans to construct the world's tallest building. I mean after all, they paid to knock down our World Trad Center, time to have their own tower of power, right? This monster will clock in at about 5,250ft. Yes, that is just shy of one mile. This is almost double the heighth of the current record-contender, the Dubai Tower at 2600 ft.

"And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands. And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of Adam were building.

And he said: Behold, it is one people, and all have one tongue: and they have begun to do this, neither will they leave off from their designs, till they accomplish them in deed. Come ye, therefore, let us go down, and there confound their tongue, that they may not understand one another's speech. And so the Lord scattered them from that place into all lands, and they ceased to build the city. And therefore the name thereof was called Babel,"

When will they learn?

Pope Pius XII, the Prophet

2008-04-28T02:42:00.000-07:00

59. The Church is without question a living organism, and as an organism, in respect of the sacred liturgy also, she grows, matures, develops, adapts and accommodates herself to temporal needs and circumstances, provided only that the integrity of her doctrine be safeguarded. This notwithstanding, the temerity and daring of those who introduce novel liturgical practices, or call for the revival of obsolete rites out of harmony with prevailing laws and rubrics, deserve severe reproof. It has pained Us grievously to note, Venerable Brethren, that such innovations are actually being introduced, not merely in minor details but in matters of major importance as well. We instance, in point of fact, those who make use of the vernacular in the celebration of the august eucharistic sacrifice; those who transfer certain feast-days - which have been appointed and established after mature deliberation - to other dates; those, finally, who delete from the prayerbooks approved for public use the sacred texts of the Old Testament, deeming them little suited and inopportune for modern times.

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.[52] They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

62. Assuredly it is a wise and most laudable thing to return in spirit and affection to the sources of the sacred liturgy. For research in this field of study, by tracing it back to its origins, contributes valuable assistance towards a more thorough and careful investigation of the significance of feast-days, and of the meaning of the texts and sacred ceremonies employed on their occasion. But it is neither wise nor laudable to reduce everything to antiquity by every possible device. Thus, to cite some instances, one would be straying from the straight path were he to wish the altar restored to its primitive tableform; were he to want black excluded as a color for the liturgical vestments; were he to forbid the use of sacred images and statues in Churches; were he to order the crucifix so designed that the divine Redeemer's body shows no trace of His cruel sufferings; and lastly were he to disdain and reject polyphonic music or singing in parts, even where it conforms to regulations issued by the Holy See.

-- Pope Pius XII, Mediator Dei

It seems even in the times of Pope Pius XII and even before with Pius X and Pius IX, people within the Church were desiring these things. After Vatcian II, it seems they were given their chance under the guise of the "Spirit of Vatican II". Lets have a run-down:

1. No latin
2. Moving feast days without permission
3. Editing the liturgy at will
4. Reducing the liturgy to what it was in the first century just because. (Neocatechumenal Way)
5. High altars reduced to tables
6. Black excluded as a liturgical color
7. Removal of sacred art
8. Crucifix has no trace of the sufferings of Christ
9. Rejection of sacred polyphony

All of this has come to pass. Where were we? What will we do about it now? If such things were wrong then, aren't they still wrong now?

Conspiracy Fodder

2008-04-19T20:57:00.000-07:00

D. G. D. Davidson made this comment over on Fr. Erik's blog:

"When you destroy books, generations later, people start to wonder what was in those books, and then they decide, with no evidence, that those books must have been very wise and full of great secrets. Then when an archaelogist uncovers copies of said books, they are found to be quite ordinary and to contain what level-headed people guessed they contained anyway, but the myth of the books is so strong that people go all swoony over them and claim that at last great, ancient secrets have been revealed.

It's much better to catalogue the objectionable books so you can take them out when necessary and say, "See? There's really nothing particularly great in here!""

How many times have you heard that someone could prove some half-baked theory if they just had the evidence that obviously those responsible are hiding? Kinda makes you wonder how they know it's true to begin with if they have seen no evidence, huh? Let's get started!

What people could prove if they just had the evidence:

1. That aliens really did crash-land in Roswell, New Mexico

2. The Kennedy assassination was really a CIA plot.

3. The masons really are descendants of the Templar knights.

4. The masons really do pre-exist the 18th century.

5. Leonard Nimoy is really a Vulcan.

6. The Catholic Church is the whore of Babylon

7. The Illuminati really are in charge of the United States and want to make a New World Order

8. 9/11 really is just a Zionist plot to attack muslims

9. Democrats really aren't communists and traitors

10. Islam really is a religion of peace

11. The CIA listens in on your juicy phone conversations about what to make for dinner and saying hi to your mom.

12. Hillary really did duck from sniper fire.

13. The early christians really did beleive in sola scriptura.

14. The fruits of Vatican II

15. The Pope really is the richest man on earth

16. The Inquisition killed millions of people.

17. The middle east really does respect Jimmy Carter

18. The pope condemned the Iraq war

19. The crusades were a bad thing

20. Catholic democrats can still be Catholic

21. George Soros really isn't the son of the devil.

22. Darwinism is true

23. Bill really didn't inhale.

24. John Kerry is a war hero

25. Michelle Obama really is proud to be an American

26. Wind and solar power are effective and efficient

27. The legalization and regulation of abortion has kept it safe and rare.

28. The CEO of Exxon/Moblile is the anti-Christ for making 13M dollars by destroying the planet, but Oprah is a saint for making 270m dollars providing the world with a precious resource.

29. AIDS is an equal-opportunity killer

30. Homosexuality is normal

Ok, I'll stop here, I'm having way too much fun.

No Rest for the Wicked

2008-04-17T17:03:00.001-07:00

I was alerted to a story that the senate was drafting a resolution welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States. And of course, the communist, treasonous, traitors known as the democratic party had a problem with it:

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., crafted a resolution "Welcoming Pope Benedict XVI to the United States and recognizing the unique insights his moral and spiritual reflections bring to the world stage."

But when the resolution was circulated for approval of all the members, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., an outspoken "pro-choice" advocate, put on the brakes.

The offending language: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken out for the weak and vulnerable, witnessing to the value of each and every human life."

A Boxer aide pointed specifically to the last 10 words of that sentence, saying it points directly to "pro-life" language.

Of course she'd have a problem with it. She's pro-death and that language is obviously pro-life. She makes it sound like she's opposing the 'rhetoric' but there is none. There is no reason to have a problem with the language. Unless you're admitting you don't value each and every human life...

And, like always, the Republican is asked to submi--er, compromise with the democrat, so the statement now stops at "weak and vulnerable". Wait! there's more:

Boxer also objected to another line that has since been changed.

The original line said: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty that neither attempts to strip our public spaces of religious expression nor denies the ultimate source of our rights and liberties."

It was changed to: "Whereas Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of the vibrance of religious faith in the United States, a faith nourished by a constitutional commitment to religious liberty."

So, lemme get this straight. The Constitution doesn't protect freedom of religion in public nor recognizes the source of our rights and liberties?

Well, at least not in the People's Republic of Amerika aka liberal-la-la-land.

That article then goes on showing Boxer's gratitude for Brownback's willingness to compromise. I only saw him acquiesce to a pro-murder atheist. There was no compromise, only "If you don't do what I want I'll make a stink."

Leave it to democrats to have a problem with protecting "all"human life and acknowledging there is a source of authority higher than them and their unending jihad against religion.

Is there any doubt these guys are communists? Everything that was cut-out, the pope himself has said. More evidence that you cannot be democrat and a Catholic in good conscience. Any opportunity to spread their tripe and censor anyone who opposes them. You'd think they could let it go for the occaision. But I guess it was just too tempting.

No rest for the wicked.

Abp. Fulton Sheen, the Prophet

2008-03-31T02:43:00.000-07:00

"The Christian European West barely escaped destruction at the hands of the Moslems. At one point they were stopped near Tours and at another point, later on in time, outside the gates of Vienna. The Church throughout northern Africa was practically destroyed by Moslem power, and at the present hour, the Moslems are beginning to rise again.

If Moslemism is a heresy, as Hiliaire Belloc believes it to be, it is the only heresy that has never declined. Others have had a moment of vigor, then gone into doctrinal decay at the death of the leader, and finally evaporated in a vague social movement. Moslemism, on the contrary, has only had its first phase. There was never a time in which it declined, either in numbers, or in the devotion of its followers.

The missionary effort of the Church toward this group has been at least on the surface, a failure, for the Moslems are so far almost unconvertible. The reason is that for a follower of Mohammed to become a Christian is much like a Christian becoming a Jew. The Moslems believe that they have the final and definitive revelation of God to the world and that Christ was only a prophet announcing Mohammed, the last of God's real prophets.

At the present time, the hatred of the Moslem countries against the West is becoming a hatred against Christianity itself. Although the statesmen have not yet taken it into account, there is still grave danger that the temporal power of Islam may return and, with it, the menace that it may shake off a West which has ceased to be Christian, and affirm itself as a great anti-Christian world power. Moslem writers say, "When the locust swarms darken countries, they bear on their wings these Arabic words: 'We are God's host, each of us has ninety-nine eggs, and if we had a hundred, we should lay waste the world, with all that is in it.'"

From "The World's First Love" Originally published in 1952, Ignatius Press, Pgs. 200-201

What the hell is this?!

2008-03-31T01:29:00.001-07:00

I've had it with the USCCB.

This is a joint statement released by the National Council of Synagogues and the USCCB from 2002. Link

"Nonetheless, the Church does perceive that the Jewish people’s mission ad gentes (to the nations) continues. This is a mission that the Church also pursues in her own way according to her understanding of covenant. The command of the Resurrected Jesus in Matthew 28:19 to make disciples "of all nations" (Greek = ethnē, the cognate of the Hebrew = goyim; i.e., the nations other than Israel) means that the Church must bear witness in the world to the Good News of Christ so as to prepare the world for the fullness of the kingdom of God. However, this evangelizing task no longer includes the wish to absorb the Jewish faith into Christianity and so end the distinctive witness of Jews to God in human history.

Thus, while the Catholic Church regards the saving act of Christ as central to the process of human salvation for all, it also acknowledges that Jews already dwell in a saving covenant with God. The Catholic Church must always evangelize and will always witness to its faith in the presence of God’s kingdom in Jesus Christ to Jews and to all other people. In so doing, the Catholic Church respects fully the principles of religious freedom and freedom of conscience, so that sincere individual converts from any tradition or people, including the Jewish people, will be welcomed and accepted."

So let me get this straight. There are two covenants presently existing concurrently? And the Great Commission doesn't apply to the jews? Since when?

Notice the Vatican II-switcheroo that's been so popular:

"The post-Nostra Aetate Catholic recognition of the permanence of the Jewish people’s covenant relationship to God has led to a new positive regard for the post-biblical or rabbinic Jewish tradition that is unprecedented in Christian history."

Let's see what Nostra Aetate really says:

"The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. "

What do we call a conclusion in a book or movie or essay?

THE END

Nostra Aetate does not say that the old covenant is perpetual. This is just more VII twisting to suit liberal ideas.

What does the deposit of faith have to say about this?

From the Counil of Florence:

It [the Catholic Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors."

Pope Benedict XIV from Ex Quo:

"61. The first consideration is that the ceremonies of the Mosaic Law were abrogated by the coming of Christ and that they can no longer be observed without sin after the promulgation of the Gospel. "

Pope Pius XII from Mystici Corporis:

"29. And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area - He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the House of Israel [30] - the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of His death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race.[34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from the many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as Our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head of His Church. "

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott, imprimatur from Bishop Cornelus Lucey:

"On the Cross, Christ consummated the building of the Church. The Old Covenant ceased and the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ began."

I don't see how this is anything but heresy. It goes on to talk about the Church's mission of evangelization, notice the double-speak:

"This latter activity of proclamation and catechesis the "invitation to a commitment of faith in Jesus Christ and to entry through baptism into the community of believers which is the church"16 is sometimes thought to be synonymous with "evangelization."

Uhh, how is it not the same?

"However, this is a very narrow construal and is indeed only one among many aspects of the Church’s "evangelizing mission" in the service of Gods’ kingdom. Thus, Catholics participating in interreligious dialogue, a mutually enriching sharing of gifts devoid of any intention whatsoever to invite the dialogue partner to baptism, are nonetheless witnessing to their own faith in the kingdom of God embodied in Christ. This is a form of evangelization, a way of engaging in the Church’s mission."

Ok, so why is there so much more interreligious circle-jerking than real evangelization? It seems this document is the fruit of such interreligious dialogues. The only fruit is Supposed Catholic shepherds compromising the Truth to make others happy. Has any other religion compromised their beliefs for us from these dialogues? They're more or less saying, "The Church's mission is evangelization, but not the evangelization you're thinking of."

From Doctrinal Note on Some Aspects of Evangelization:

"3. There is today, however, a growing confusion which leads many to leave the missionary command of the Lord unheard and ineffective (cf. Mt 28:19). Often it is maintained that any attempt to convince others on religious matters is a limitation of their freedom. From this perspective, it would only be legitimate to present one’s own ideas and to invite people to act according to their consciences, without aiming at their conversion to Christ and to the Catholic faith. It is enough, so they say, to help people to become more human or more faithful to their own religion; it is enough to build communities which strive for justice, freedom, peace and solidarity. Furthermore, some maintain that Christ should not be proclaimed to those who do not know him, nor should joining the Church be promoted, since it would also be possible to be saved without explicit knowledge of Christ and without formal incorporation in the Church.

In the face of these problems, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged it necessary to publish the present Note."

If there is no need to evangelize the jews, meaning the old covenant is still active and saving, then why did Christ bother with all that dying-on-the-cross stuff?

If the USCCB had their way, "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus" would be "reinterpretted" to "Extra Ecclesiam Et Iudaeum Nulla Salus" Outside the Church and the Jews there is no salvation.

I've had it with the USCCB.

Monkey See Monkey Do

2008-03-20T17:28:00.000-07:00

Most of my posts are cited with documents or news reports offering a commentary on them or with them on a particular topic. Well, today's post is going to be a bit different. Today my source is my armchair. Or rather the desk chair I bought at Target for $50. It has armrests and reclines a bit so I guess it's qualified.

You guys ever watch The Apprentice? Long story short, Donald Trump grabs a bunch of enterpreneurs, splits them into two teams, which then compete against each other. The competition involves pitting the teams against each other in several different business situations: real estate, retail, marketting, fundraisers, etc. Whichever team makes the most money wins. One person from the losing team is kicked off the show with Donald's obigatory catchphrase, "You're fired." And on from there.

I learned something very valuable from one of the episodes, a few seasons ago. No, not a business strategy, more like an insight into our particular societal behaviors.

Like I said before, there are two teams competing against each other on the show. Many times the task is aimed at consumers simply walking outside a shop. One team had an interesting, albeit unethical, way of getting people's attention and getting them in the door.

There was a black guy on the team, an accountant, late 20's early 30's, used to play basketball in college. What his team did to draw people into their store was stick him at a table with a sharpie, with someone else outside saying so-and-so was giving out autographs. They used his real name, they never said he was never in the NBA, only that he played basketball.

They had a line down the sidewalk.

He was signing basketballs, taking pitctures with kids, really getting the celebrity treatment. For a few hours he was the most famous accountant in New York.

I'll remind you that the team never lied about him, they just didn't tell the whole truth and kinda pulled a fast one on the consumers. But I'm not interested in whether it was ethical, I'm interested in how they turned this accountant into a basketball celebrity.

It worked because he was treated like a celebrity. His team propped him up like someone special so he was treated by passers-by as special as well, not even looking into if it was merited or not. They played off the actions of others to intuit that he was a celebrity. Where it was unethical is that they manipulated the consumers' intuition.

Unethical, but utterly brilliant.

This happens all the time. We constantly take others' words for it that someone's famous or worthy of national praise, or part of an elite class of American society. Take for example, Paris Hilton. Why is she a celebrity? Has she done anything to merit the amount of attention she gets? No. She's a celebrty because the media props her up like a celebrity because she's a household name's daughter.

Or how about Hanna Montana? Or Hilary Duff? They didn't merit any attention or celebrity status until the Disney Channel told us so. Notice once the gem in Hilary Duff's hand turned red (aka she got too old to appeal to the target demographic) she was dropped for Hanna Montana.

Yesterday they weren't there, today some no-name has a hit single, posters, t-shirts, chart-topping album, and all the tabloid exposure that goes with it. Instant celebrity: just add reporters. And we fall for it every time.

Why?

Because they are treated like celebrities. People intuit from how they are treated and then think that they're worthy of fame and their adoration. Their masters prop them up, usually change their name, spends a ton on marketting and usually has all of the merchandise ready to roll before anyone's ever heard the single.

But just because someone or something is treated like it was famous or valuable, doesn't mean it's not and we're being manipulated into thinking it is. There are plenty of things very worthy of celebrity status, or at least the same respect and go unnoticed:

Jesus Christ.

In videos of the TLM we see, after the consecration, the priest holds index finger to his thumb. This is because those were the fingers that had touched our Lord; every particle of which is so precious, that such care was taken so that no particle would accidentally fall from the priests fingers and be profaned. He holds those fingers together until they are washed into the chalice and then consumed. Needless to say the new rubrics don't retain this act, so the vast majority of priests don't do it.

How many of you have caught an extraodrinary minister of Holy Communion or even the priest dust off his hands after handling our Lord? My mother said that on a televised mass celebrated by a bishop, he did this same thing. I never saw it, but I take my mother's word for it.

How many of you have been to parishes that have no perpetual adoration? Or perhaps the tebernacle is hidden off in some corner of the sanctuary, if even in the sanctuary at all? Or maybe the tabernacle is nothing more than a nondescript box, something you'd half expect to find mail in, let alone our Lord?

How many people have you seen in the communion line, versus how many you see in the confession line?

How many complaints have you heard from other Catholics that communion is for Catholics only and should be for everyone?

How can we teach that recieving our Lord unworthily, we eat and drink condemnation on ourselves when we hand Him out to anyone and everyone, in a state of grace or not, even within the Church or not?

If Jesus was walking around today, would we dust Him off, stick Him in a corner by Himself while the priest takes all of the attention, hand Him over to be at the mercy of anyone, in the state of grace or not? Would we tell Him that everyone in the parish is too busy to keep Him company for one hour? Would we do nothing to show others that He is not just some man? Yet in the Eucharist He is treated as just some bread. We do all of this to Him all the time.

I had a comment on my 1962 vs. 1970 post that honestly helped inspire my train of thought for this post. He said, "And the whole "bread" thing throughout the Novus Ordo is just wrong. You can't continuously refer to it as "bread" and expect the people to believe it's more than that."

And he's exactly right.

Why is there such a huge decline in belief in the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist? Because it isn't teated like it is true. Remember what St. Francis said, "Evangelize always, use words when necessary." (paraphrase) He's asking us to act and live so wholly and obviously christian that people can intuit our faith without even asking. We can talk about, quote scripture, quote the Church Fathers all we want on the True Presence, but until Catholics treat it like it is, how can we expect anyone to believe us? How can we expect this belief to hold firm for everyone when everything they intuit from our actions (or lack thereof) is the opposite?

If we and even our priests in some instances don't reinforce the truth of the True presence with our actions and our respect, it's no wonder the belief is so little held among us.

Obama's Hypocrisy

2008-03-18T17:20:00.000-07:00

Most likey you've heard about Obama's minister, Jeremiah Wright, pawning off anti-white tirades as sermons. On his "church's" website, there used to be a listing of "black values" (as if the needs of mankind change upon the amount of malanin contained in one's skin) in the "About Us" section. In the aftermath of the fallout, that has since been removed. But there still is a link to what they consider "black values" at the bottom of the page. This minister as well as his congregation have endorsed Obama, the democrat.

Why is this hypocritical?

Let's take a look at the leading cause of death among blacks (thanks to ziggy over at CCF):

So abortion has claimed roughly three times as many black Americans as the other top five non-natural causes of death combined.

Let's also look at some other statistics :

The abortion ratio for black women (491 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (165 per 1,000), and the ratio for women of the nonhomogenous "other" race category (376 per 1,000) was 2.3 times the ratio for white women. The abortion rate for black women (29 per 1,000 women) was 3.0 times the rate for white women (10 per 1,000) whereas the abortion rate for women of other races (21 per 1,000 women) was 2.1 times the rate for white women.

So a third of black pregnancies end in abortion.

How about the fertility rate?:

Fertility, defined as the number of births per 1,000 women, was identified at 84.9 for black women in 1980; by 2002, the fertility rate among black women had fallen to 65.8. Similar reductions did not occur among white women. For white women, the fertility rate in 1980 was 65.6 births per 1,000 women; by 2002, the fertility rate for white women was 64.8, little changed.

So we see in 22 years a ~23% decrease in fertility compared to whites, who had almost no change.

We have the eugenicist Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood to thank for this. Here's an excerpt from an article describing her plans for "The Negro project" and ways to cover up its true intent (quotation marks added by me):

Prior to 1939, Sanger’s "outreach to the black community was largely limited to her Harlem clinic and speaking at black churches." Her vision for "the reproductive practices of black Americans" expanded after the January 1939 merger of the Clinical Research Bureau and the American Birth Control League to form the Birth Control Federation of America. She selected Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, of the soap-manufacturing company Procter and Gamble, to be the BCFA regional director of the South.

Gamble wrote a memorandum in November 1939 entitled "Suggestions for the Negro Project," in which he recognized that "black leaders might regard birth control as an extermination plot." He suggested black leaders to be placed in positions where it would appear they were in charge. Yet Sanger’s reply reflects Gamble’s ambivalence about having blacks in authoritative positions:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience … that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, [*cough*Obama*cough*] he can go among them with enthusiasm and … knowledge, which … will have far-reaching results among the colored people."

Another project director lamented:

"I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with … a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under white supervision."

Sanger knew blacks were religious people–and how useful ministers would be to her project. She wrote in the same letter:

"The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister [*cough*Jeremiah Wright*cough*] is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Need I connect the dots between Planned Parenthood and the democratic party?

For a preacher and congregation that enshrines "black values", it seems rather contradictory to be compelled to vote for a person who will only further and protect Planned Parenthood's genocide against blacks.

Blacks who work for conservative values including ending the genocide inflicted upon them through abortion are labeled race traitors. Yet 90% of blacks vote for people who they think are out to protect "black values" yet are the proponents of the leading cause of death among them.

My message to the black community: Don't be fooled by the color of his skin. Obama will only perpetuate the genocidal machinations of the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger. Obama is the "Negro doctor at the clinic".

1962 VS. 1970

2008-02-15T10:35:00.000-08:00

Ever gotten into one of these arguments?

Every time I read one, there's always one person who blames the NO for abuses and likewise blames the TLM for people being 'bored'.

Well, what both sides need to remember is that the NO doesn't prescribe any abuses just like hte TLM isn't responsible for the laity not involving themselves. Before many of you label me a traitor, my point is that your argument must be on something tangible. Clown masses, liturgical dancing, etc. are atrocities. But that doesn't really bolster the TLM because niether is it legal in the NO.

What we can objectively and effectively compare are the missals themselves. This should be the basis of the argument. The "elephant in the sanctuary" argument can apply to both. So let's construct our intellectual argument:

First, we must establish lex orandi lex credendi. Meaning the law [of] prayer [is the] law [of] belief. Simply seen as prayer influences belief. Now we have a case for the NO influencing a fall in the quality of belief in the faithful.

Let's look at some examples:

The lavabo--

TLM:

P: I will wash my hands among the innocent, and will cleanse compass Thine altar, O Lord. That I may hear the voice of praise, and tell of all Thy wondrous works. I have loved, O Lord, the beauty of Thy house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth. Take not away my soul, O God, with the wicked; nor my life with men of blood. In whose hands are iniquities: their right hand is filled with gifts. But as for me, I have walked in my innocence; redeem me, and have mercy on me. My foot hath stood in the right way; in the churches I will bless Thee, O Lord. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be; world without end. Amen.[The priest returns to the middle of the altar and bowing slightly, says:]

P: Receive, O holy Trinity, this oblation offered up by us to Thee in memory of the passion, resurrection, and ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in honor of blessed Mary, ever a virgin, of blessed John the Baptist, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of these, and of all the saints, that it may be available to their honor and to our salvation; and may they whose memory we celebrate on earth vouchsafe to intercede for us in heaven. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

NO:

P: Lord, wash away my iniquity; cleanse me from my sin.

There's an obvious difference. Other than the length, what do you see mostly missing from the NO excerpt?

Humility.

The TLM excerpt is filled with requests to God, invocation of saints, and entreaties to God to allow the priest, although humanly unworthy as we all are unworthy, to allow him to do His good works. The NO has none of that.

Let's look at the introduction:

TLM:

P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

P: I will go in to the altar of God.

R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.

P: Judge me, O God, and distinguish my cause from the nation that is not holy; deliver me from the unjust and deceitful man.

R: For Thou art, God, my strength; why hast Thou cast me off? and why do I go all sorrowful whilst the enemy afflicteth me?

P: Send forth Thy light and Thy truth: they conducted me and brought me unto Thy holy hill, and into Thy tabernacles.

R: And I will go in to the altar of God: to God Who giveth joy to my youth.

P: To Thee, O God, my God, I will give praise upon the harp: why art thou sad, O my soul, and why dost thou disquiet me?

R: Hope in God, for I will still give praise to Him, the salvation of my countenance and my God.

P: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost.

R: As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

P: I will go in to the altar of God.

R: To God, Who giveth joy to my youth.

P: Our help (+) is in the name of the Lord.

R: Who made heaven and earth.

NO:

P: In the name of the Father, (+) and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

R: Amen.1.

P: The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

R: And also with you.

Again, what is missing?

Humility.

The altar is regarded as something sacred, that is is God's special tool so to say. It is on this altar that His Son will be sacrificed for the salvation of many. That excerpt reflects this. The NO excerpt is missing this reverence.

Let's take a look at the offeratory prayers:

TLM:

P: Receive, O Holy Father, almighty and eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God, for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting. Amen.

P: O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew: by the mystery signified in the mingling of this water and wine, grant us to have part in the Godhead of Him Who hath vouchsafed to share our manhood, Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Our Lord, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God; world without end. Amen.

P: We offer unto Thee, O Lord, the chalice of salvation, beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world. Amen.

P: Humbled in mind, and contrite of heart, may we find favor with Thee, O Lord; and may the sacrifice we this day offer up be well pleasing to Thee, Who art our Lord and our God.P: Come, Thou, the Sanctifier, God, almighty and everlasting: bless (+) this sacrifice which is prepared for the glory of Thy holy name.

NO:

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life.

R. Blessed be God for ever.

P: By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.

P: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink.

R: Blessed be God for ever.P: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.

Strikingly different, yes? Let's take a closer look.

First, the TLM makes reference to the "spotless host" which the NO refers to merely as "bread". The key thing here is that Jesus is the spotless victim. The focus on "spotless" is lost.

Next, the TLM excerpt emphasizes the humility the priest and faithful have in their offering by saying "Thine unworthy servant, offer unto Thee, my living and true God..." The NO equivalent is "we have this bread to offer..."

Next, is the reason why we are offering our sacrifice to God (remember the jews would make offerings for the priest to sacrifice upon the altar, but for a specific purpose) TLM: "...for my countless sins, trespasses, and omissions; likewise for all here present, and for all faithful Christians, whether living or dead, ..."

For our countless sins and on behalf of all christians.

The NO excerpt has no such reason for the offering.

Next is our christian hope that our unworthy sacrifice pleases God that He may grant us eternal life: "...that it may avail both me and them to salvation, unto life everlasting."

There is a focus on sacrifice. Our sacrifice inextricably united with God's sacrifice, for the salvation of our souls. This is missing altogether from the NO excerpt.

Next, we see that God exalted us in humbling Himself to take human flesh: "O God, Who in creating man didst exalt his nature very wonderfully and yet more wonderfully didst establish it anew..."

The NO has this to say, "may we come to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity. "

The NO is missing the entire point of why God lowering Himself, casting off such infinite majesty, just to walk among us and to save us, is such an incredible and infinite honor.

Next we have the emphasis on requesting God to make worthy our sacrifice that it may please Him, and grant us eternal life: "beseeching Thy clemency that it may ascend as a sweet odor before Thy divine majesty, for our own salvation, and for that of the whole world..."

The NO has, "Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink."

No request of God, through His power, make the sacrifice worthy of Him, no request that it may please God unto everlasting life, no mention of the infinite divide between God's mejesty and our lowliness.

It is through God's grace that our works are pleasing to Him, because they are as rags. The TLM asks for that grace to sanctify our rags unto a pleasing sacrifice; that Christ's sacrifice enriches our humble and meager sacrifice. the NO merely asks God to be pleased with our rags.

Now let's look at the dismissal:

TLM:

P: The Lord be with you.

R: And with thy Spirit.P: Go, the Mass is ended.

R: Thanks be to God.

P: May the lowly homage of my service be pleasing to Thee, O most holy Trinity: and do Thou grant that the sacrifice which I, all unworthy, have offered up in the sight of Thy majesty, may be acceptable to Thee, and, because of Thy loving kindness, may avail to atone to Thee for myself and for all those for whom I have offered it up. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

P: May almighty God, the Father, and the Son (+), and the Holy Ghost, bless you.

R: Amen.

NO:

P: The Lord be with you.

R: And also with you.

P: May almighty God bless you, the Father, and the Son, (+) and the Holy Spirit.

R: Amen.

P: Go in peace to love and serve the Lord.

R: Thanks be to God.

Most obvious difference is the "May the lowly homage of my service..." prayer is missing. Is there any good reason why it was removed? What's so broken about it that to 'fix' the mass it needed to be removed?

Again, it emphasizes our unworthiness and humility in our offerings and sacrifices to the Lord. It also emphasizes a christian hope that it may please Him. This is missing altogether from the NO.

In conclusion:

Let's go back to lex orandi lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of belief. If the faithful are given poor prayers they will have a poor belief. Also in reverse, if a person has a poor belief, chances are they were given poor prayers. This is why the ICEL wields so much power and has much to answer for.

Since we have proven with objective evidence that the prayers in the NO are "less in quality" than those in teh TLM, we must conclude, according to lex orandi lex credendi, that the NO is at least partially responsible for a fall in the quality of belief in the faithful. This is completly aside from poor homilies, abuses, music, etc.

The key to making a good case for the TLM is to stick to what is written, so that you can objectively compare, instead of comparing abuses which neither prescribe. Compare the meat and potatoes of both. Neither mass prescribes disobedience. But one mass carries a superior lex orandi (and therefore enriches a superior lex credendi) than the other. Focus on that in your argument.

1930 Alert

2007-12-21T13:14:00.000-08:00

Thanks to Cathcon

AN ALL-FEMALE committee representing the Anglican Church's Melbourne diocese has recommended that abortion be decriminalised, in what is believed to be the first official approval of abortion by Australian Anglicans.

The diocese was one of 40 church, medical and community groups who made confidential submissions to the Victorian Law Reform Commission, which is reviewing state abortion laws. According to the commission, there were also more than 500 written submissions.

And my favorite part:

"If we are serious about reducing the number of abortions, paradoxically we shouldn't make it more difficult legally because we will go back to the days where poorer women resorted to underground means and corruption was rife through the police, medical practitioners and hospitals," she said.

"The knee-jerk reaction is to make the legislation very restrictive, [which is usually what a goverment doess to limit or stop something...] but the way you reduce abortions is with contraception and sex education. [God-forbid anyone teach abstinence, the only 100% effective way to avoid unwanted pregnancies and STD's] The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."

Notice the double-speak?

"If we want to reduce abortions we should decriminalize it."

When has the legalization and govermental regulation of anything resulted in its reduction? After the prohibition of alcohol was lifted and regulated, did alcohol consumtion go down or up? After protitution was legalized and regulated in Nevada, did prostitution go down or up? After abortion was legalized in the states, did the number of abortions go down or up? When there was a big push by liberals to hand out condoms in school, the banning of teaching abstinence, and teaching of homosexual lifestyles to grade-schoolers, did teenage pregnancies go down or up?

And more doublespeak here: "The other thing is to support families — we need to be a pro-child society with a pro-child government."

How can government and society be "pro-child" and "pro-family" while legalizing abortion and pushing contraception? How does that work? How is pushing the message that we have the 'right' to a 'consequence-free sex-life' and the right to kill family members "pro-family"? And always with the fear-mongering of returning to back-alley coat-hanger abortions.

The only way to get us to drink their poison is mixing it with pleasant-tasting platitutdes. I think it's obvious liberals are somewhat mentally defficient. That's why they're liberals. So all those who aren't sharp enough to see through their doubletalk will fall for their deceit.

It boils down to "If you're pro-family then you'll side with us and legalize abortion." What hooey! What an insult to our intelligence that they'd try to pull a fast one like that. Do they think we're stupid? Yes, because liberals think our nanny-state should take care of us, that we're too inept to take care pf ourselves. Are we that stupid? Many of us are, because we keep falling for it.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/anglicans-call-for-new-stance-on-abortion/2007/12/14/1197568264984.html

The New Ecumenism - Evangelists Need Not Apply

2007-12-12T17:27:00.000-08:00

Here are some words from Cardinal Kasper, President of the Pontifical Commission for Christian Unity, regarding the 400,000 Anglicans seeking union with the Church: (H/T to Gerals at The Cafeteria Is Closed )

One of the Vatican's most senior cardinals has dismissed the idea that a breakaway group of Anglicans might be received into the Catholic Church en masse - despite Benedict XVI's personal support for such a move. Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, told The Catholic Herald: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome."

The cardinal's comments refer to the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a rebel group which claims to represent 400,000 people. Its bishops sent a letter to Rome last month requesting "full, corporate and sacramental union". But the bishops did not send their letter to Cardinal Kasper. Instead they addressed it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), where, it is understood, they expected a warmer reception.

It has been claimed that 60 Anglican parishes have joined the rebel group since their request became public.

The cardinal said on Monday: "We are on good terms with the Archbishop of Canterbury and as much as we can we are helping him to keep the Anglican community together."

When asked whether he felt encouraged by the TAC's request, the cardinal replied: "It's not our policy to bring that many Anglicans to Rome and I am not sure there are so many as you are speaking about."

He added: "Of course, as a Catholic I am happy if one person joins our Catholic Church but I doubt such a big group is coming - I think there are still many questions to solve first."

And here I thought that we were called to evangelize the world and bring all people into the Church, ouside of which there is no salvation.

I didn't know that it was our duty to keep other protestants faiths together.

This guy is a disgrace to his office; he's working directly against why his congregation exists. He doesn't want unity, he wants indifferentism. VII has really screwed up the notion of ecumenism, which used to stress teh ecumenism of return. It used to preach the importance of evangelization. Now it just stresses the hippie notions of I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok.

If it's not for the sake of reuniting people with the one trut Church of Christ then it is a waste of time. I guess Kasper cares more about happy-clappy circle-jerks than saving souls.

I'm sorry Cardinal, you may not want 400,000 souls to rejoin the true Church. But there are over 400,000 souls that disagree with you.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=7202

The Next Punch to the Groin of Indifferentists

2007-12-11T14:19:00.000-08:00

H/T to Roman Catholic Blog

Dec. 7, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican will release a new document on evangelization next week, with officials in Rome indicating that it will be an important statement on the duty to spread the Catholic faith.

The subject of the new document, which is being released under the auspices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is evangelization. The document will be released on December 14.

In July of this year, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released, a document entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church, reaffirming the central role of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church in the plan of salvation. That document, released without fanfare, revived a controversy that had been ignited in 2000 by Dominus Iesus (doc), a powerful statement released by the same Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed at that time by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger), which affirmed the traditional Catholic teaching that the Christ and his Church provide the only means of salvation.

The new Vatican document is expected to carry the argument of Dominus Iesus a step further, explaining that because of the unique role played by the Church in the plan of redemption, Catholics have an obligation to spread the faith, thus offering others the best means of attaining salvation.

I hope the shepherds will not be too scared of the wolves and that this document has no-nonsense wording free of Vatican II-speak. We need hard and fast language with zero room for (mis)interpretation. We need the truth to be told no matter how unpopular it is. The more controversy such a statement threatens the more it obviously needs to be said.

To paraphrase Bp. Fulton Sheen,

"We need a Church that is right not when the world is right, but a Church that is right when the world is wrong."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=55201

The Canary in the Mine

2007-12-05T17:19:00.000-08:00

H/T to Cathcon

Reindeer Ralph - the new Nativity

The traditional nativity play is on the wane, suggests a survey. One alternative is Ralph the Reindeer, says a leading children's playwright.

The excitement of being Third Shepherd, Inn Keeper or Little Donkey is a staple part of a schoolchild's Christmas experience.

For generations, the season is forever associated with tea-towels and tinsel, as parents rummage to make costumes for traditional Nativity performances.

Yet a Sunday Telegraph survey of 100 schools has found only one in five opting to stage the traditional Christmas story. One in three will stage a religion-free Christmas play or have no event at all.

The apparent trend for non-traditional plays has been welcomed by the National Secular Society's director Keith Porteous Wood.

"This is a reflection of society: Seventy straight years of continuous decline in Church attendance," he says.

"We should celebrate it. It shows a greater sensitivity to our more multicultural society, those of all faiths and none."

Multiculturalism, the new political dogma, will destroy western culture. Silly religious zealots we are, thinking that not all cultures and religions are morally equivalent. We're merely throwbacks from a bygone era marked by persecution and bigotry, right? If you don't support multiculturalism then you must be racist. Or if you don't accept all religions as equal you must be an ignorant fanatic.

Removing God only panders to the slim minority of atheists. There is nothing there that supports faith by removing the reason for that faith.

That's ok. Remove it out of sight, stuff it away, pretend it doesn't exist, ignore it and it will just go away.

Once you make people forget where their country came from they will forget what their country means. If you have no history, no traditions, no foundation, then you don't have very much of a reason for patriotism. Leave a country's values and foundation to the waxing and waning of public opinion and fancy, you won't have anything worth protecting but a bunch of opinions.

If you want to know where we're headed, just look to the UK.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7125171.stm

More Roman Protestants - This time from a Cardinal

2007-12-04T16:05:00.001-08:00

This is from Fr. Z's blog:

This is an excerpt from the response to Summorum Pontificum by Julius Cardinal Darmaatmadja SJ, Archbishop of Jakarta:

4. As a bishops which authority is also recognized in "motu proprio data", I affirm that what is currently practiced now is the only [one] (meaning the ordinary form) officialy practiced for the Arch Diocese of Jakarta. Until there are special condition which force this ruling to be reviewed.

5. I made the ruling because of consideration that the reason for the [re]establishement of the 1962 Missale Romanum is not relevant for the Arch diocese of Jakarta. There are no Pius X group, the lefebvrist group. There is no reason for reconciliation in the Church in the Arch diocese of Jakarta, which has become the reason for "motu proprio data" 7 July 2007. With the currently practice Missale Romanum, still opens the possibility of Gregorian songs being sung. Therefore I decided for the whole ArchDiocese of Jakarta to follow the ordinary [which is] the newest form of Missale Romanum, in order to follow the latest development, [a development] which was made after the second Vatican council.

Not relevent?

First off, he doesn't have the authority to ban the mass of Pius V.

Second, there are a whole lot of non-SSPX parishioners that desire the TLM, Summorum Pontificum is not just a concession to the SSPX.

Third, it has the authority of the Pope who has authority over you, you twit!

Who the hell does he think he is? This is open rebellion. Why would a man of God ban a mass? Perhaps he's not working for God, but himself; and by proxy, someone else...

Of course, he is a Jesuit and such defiance isn't all that surprising from that society.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/12/julius-cardinal-darmaatmadja-sj-says-summorum-pontificum-doesnt-apply-to-jakarta/

Twas a month before Christmas

2007-11-27T22:58:00.000-08:00

I just got this in my email, I thought I'd share:

'Twas the month before Christmas when all through our land,
Not a Christian was praying nor taking a stand.
Why the PC Police had taken away,
The reason for Christmas - no one could say.

The children were told by their schools not to sing,
About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.
It might hurt people's feelings', the teachers would say.
December 25th is just a ' Holiday '.

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit
Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!
CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod S
omething was changing, something quite odd!

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa
In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.
As Targets are hanging their trees upside down
At Lowe's the word Christmas - was no where to be found.

At K-Mart and Staples and Penny's and Sears
You won't hear the word Christmas; it won't touch your ears.
Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-is-ty
Are words that were used to intimidate me.

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen
On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton !
At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter
To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.

And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith
Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace
The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded
The reason for the season, stopped before it started.

So as you celebrate 'Winter Break' under your 'DreamTree'
Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.
Choose your words carefully, choose what you say
Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday !

And I thought guilt was a Catholic thing

2007-11-25T15:29:00.000-08:00

Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet".

"Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35.

"Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

"I've never felt a twinge of guilt about what I did, and have honestly never wondered what might have been.

First, it was if you were white, you should feel guilty about oppressing blacks.

Then it was if you were male, you should feel guilty about oppressing women.

Then it was if you were christian, you should feel guilty about oppressing other religions.

Then it was if you living in a western culture, you should feel guilty about oppressing eastern cultures.

Now it's all reached it's final conclusion; if you're human, you should feel guilty about oppressing the entire planet. And if you bear a child, gaia help you!

And here I thought the popular joke was guilt was a Catholic thing.

Now there's proof the nutty-left enviro-kooks and contraception and abortion go hand-in-hand.

Notice the double-talk: "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," Oh, ok, so having an abortion, choosing for the child whether or not it would like an existence, somehow isn't selfish?

These aren't activists, nor are they eco-conscious. They're nihilists, pure and simple. My best friend in highschool was one of them I know how they are. Humanity is a plague upon the earth that needs to be purged. Humanity is evil, the less human beings the better. There is no reason for goodness because humanity is intrinsically evil and will just corrupt the goodness eventually. Life is simply waiting to die, and the sooner the better.

I would call these people self-afflicted martyrs but they don't hold up their 'sacrifice' to move people's pity. They're proud of it. Self-hate has been consumed in such queantities that it has now perverted even human instinct.

An interesting comparison is that 95% of all abortions are done out of convenience. The focus of these people are themselves. In this instance, the abortion was for the planet. In the first case, you have ultimate pride, their god is themselves. In the second, you have the Greenhouse Gestapo as their god.

Both the selfish and the 'selfless' are enchanted with satan's spell.

How about all of these people just off themselves? Seriously. The only way to remove a person's carbon footprint, let alone putting it in the negative is to stop breathing. The more you breathe, the more carbon you create. Gaia would be happier with less carbon and everyone else on earth would be happier without the Greenhouse Gestapo's finger-wagging.

If humanity is such a burden on the planet, and procreating is only a selfish expression of one's impulse to continue their genetic line, then why don't the eco-elite enviro-illuminati lead by example and stop breathing?

What the earth needs is a purging of all the enviro-fundamentalists.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879

Life-Teen Founder Turns Protestant Minister

2007-11-24T12:51:00.000-08:00

This hits pretty close to home and I'm not terribly surprised.

The former pastor at a Mesa Catholic church who faces seven misdemeanor charges of sexual misconduct has started a new worship center and conducted his first services.

More than 500 worshippers gathered to hear Dale Fushek conduct a service at a Mesa hotel Thursday.Known as "Monsignor Dale" during his 20 years at St. Timothy's, Fushek co-founded the national Life Teen program and served as vicar general of the Catholic Diocese of Phoenix

But all that came tumbling down in late 2005, when he was arrested on one count of assault, five counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and one count of indecent exposure. He is accused of engaging in sexually related discussions with teenagers during confessions and exposing himself to teens as he got into his hot tub.

Fushek was suspended by the diocese (God bless Bishop Olmsted) and is now resigning from the priesthood. He is tying to win the right to a jury trial on the charges and a hearing is pending on that issue before the Arizona Supreme Court.

On Thanksgiving Day, he said he was happy to be back before a group of worshippers.

Well I guess we know what he really wants. Aside from flashing minors that is. The want for an audience takes precedence over the True Presence of Jesus Christ. Seems to be a growing trend over the past, oh, 40 or so years.

Is it really any big surprise that the founder of a quasi-Catholic protestant-esque youth ministry would turn protestant when the going got tough? The founder of a Catholic youth ministry to teach Catholicism to teens leaves the Church to start a protestant denomination. Anyone else see the irony?

I think it's obvious he really didn't care about teaching the truth (seeing as he doesn't believe it himself) as much as he just wanted to get near kids. Which is really quite fitting seeing as Life Teen doesn't teach anything.

I live in teh Phoenix diocese and Life Teen was over a decade old when I went through it. And I can honestly say to you that it is worthless. 'Hip' songs and charismatic hand-waving does not teach Catholic doctrine. I was confirmed after the program's close and I had no idea what a dogma even was, let alone what any of them were. I came away from Life Teen in the same state as when I entered it, only more embarassed.

If you want to reach kids, don't make them sing cheesy songs, perform stupid skits, or ask stupid questions like "How does this express Jesus' love for us?"

If there's one thing teens fear more than the devil that is embarassment in front of their peers. All of those things accomplish that. Lame attempts at 'reaching' teens only turns into patronization.

Of course, I think Flashing Fushek had a different idea about 'reaching' teens...

Last words:

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, Dale.

Enjoy the barbeque.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/mesa/articles/1123indicted-priest1123-ON.html

Back in Black

2007-11-20T16:02:00.000-08:00

I'm back!

I apologize to my gratious readers for my absence. Did ya miss me? Yeah, I know, not much to miss, haha. To be honest I think I just needed a break. Not just from blogging, but the whole traditional cause. Not that it's not a noble one, only very taxing sometimes. You work to spread the truth yet you see so many obstacles and others working against you. And you feel like what can your little blog do? You're only one voice out of thousands. But if everyone took that point of view there would be no one left. So I congratulate those who had the strength to continue when I did not.

But!

Now that my batteries are recharged, there are pressing issues to discuss, my fellow faith warriors:

Lately, I've been debating on a Catholic forum about the moral licitness of a bishop in the UK approving legal regulation on prostitution and a priest in Venice allowing muslims use of his church for friday prayers.

First a short snippet:

LONDON (Reuters) - A Roman Catholic bishop in the city of Portsmouth is backing a campaign to legalise brothels without in any way condoning them.

The Right Reverend Crispian Hollis supported the local branch of the Women's Institute which wants to licence brothels.

"If you are going to take a pragmatic view and say prostitution happens, I think there is a need to make sure it's as well regulated as possible for the health of people involved and for the safety of the ladies themselves," Hollis said.

"That's not to say I approve of prostitution in any way. I would be very much happier if there was no prostitution in Portsmouth," he told The Portsmouth News.

"But it's going to be there whatever we do and it has been from time immemorial. So I think that is something we have to be realistic about."

Does his reasoning sound familiar? People who back 'safe' abortion, giving out condoms in schools, school nurses giving the pill to 13 year old girls, euthanasia, a 'safe' environment for their kids to abuse alcohol and drugs, etc. all use the "they're gonna do it anyway, let's make it 'safe' " argument. Which everyone can see is absurd.

One person even went so far as to apply the double-effect doctrine to justify it. The key thing about doube-effect is that the undesired side-effect is just that: undesired. It's not the aim of the action.

This, on the other hand, does nothing but facilitate the sin, it's not double-effect at all. There is no way to legalize and regulate a sinful behavior and at the same time stop that behavior.

Now about the muslims using the church:

Believe it or not! A parish Church turns into a mosque every Friday, for the Muslims brothers and to offer their customary prayers. This isn't a sequence from any Bollywood film, but a reality in the parish of Our Lady of Assumption of Ponzano near Venice, the romantic city of Italy. The pastor of the parish, Don Aldo Danieli, 69, affirms, "It's useless to speak of religious dialogue and then bang the door on their face. Pope John Paul II addressed them as, 'dear Muslim brothers'. How can we close our church doors to them?"

At Ponzano, in the province of Treviso, live some 11,500 people of whom 232 families are immigrants, making their number roughly 650. These are mainly immigrants from North African countries and Eastern Europe. Two years ago, Don Aldo decided to open the doors of the church to these Muslim immigrants and keep a portion of his own parochial house including a kitchen and a little at their disposal. On Fridays an average of 200 Muslim believers gather in the church and offer prayers. But in the month of Ramadan, the number swells to 1000-1200. "They requested me and I said yes, moreover, the kitchen and hall were a home for spiders".

The decision of Don Aldo has disturbed the peace of mind of more than a few parishioners. The protests of even the local bishop and priests have reached his ears. "I haven't asked the express permission of the bishop, because it's an act of charity. No permission is needed to do charity. For the rest, I am older than the bishop and been his professor in the seminary too.

Oh, ok. Since he was his professor I guess that gives him a higher authority than the bishop. I wonder why, if this professor-priest knows so much better than the bishop does, why is he only a priest? Shouldn't a man of his intellectual excellence be rewarded with a crook of his own? I guess the Vatican doesn't recognize the intellectual powerhouse they're wasting.

Mean old Vatican.

Or perhaps they want to keep him in a place where he can't do much damage, as this example shows. That, or they see in him only hot air and ego. Perhaps both.

The debate on this issue surrounded the topic of is his actions an example of christian charity?

Back on October I covered Pius IX's moral declarations on modern democratic freedoms. I think every true Catholic that's worth his or her catechetical salt can agree that mankind does not have the moral right to false worship, and that any worship contrary to the Catholic faith is false. Granted, ignorance can mitigate or even remove a person's culpability of sin, but the priest isn't ignorant of what is true and what is false worship.

Christian charity obligates us to shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, care for the sick, visit the imprisoned, etc. Providing shelter means giving the homeless a place to sleep, rest, and eat that keeps the cold and the rain out. But that's where it ends.

Is facilitating false worship an act of christian charity? According to the nine ways of being accessory to another's sin, wouldn't we be complicit in the sin of false worship by allowing it to occur in our own churches without a peep of protest? The muslims may not know better, but we as well as the priest do know better. There's no claim to ignorance here.

Should we provide a place for them to practice their sin of false worship just because they desire it?

Should we provide needles for a junkie for their sin of drug abuse becuase they desire it?

Should we provide contraception for a person because they desire it?

Remember, none of the parties involved think their acts of sin are wrong. Knowing better, should we facilitate their sins?

The debate then turned into how this makes steps forward in 'ecumenism' aka indifferentism and how it is a good thing. I say bull-oney. Christ wouldn't even let jewish moneychangers hang out outside the temple let alone inside of it, He chased them off with a whip. There's no reason why a Catholic should allow false worship in the House of God with the True Presence of Jesus Christ in the tabernacle as a witness.

This act forsakes the respect of God for the respect of men.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL0880620520071108

http://mangalorean.com/browsearticles.php?arttype=Feature&articleid=1149

Ecce Reliquum Nostrum

2007-10-09T15:49:00.000-07:00

Behold our future:

Are those cassocks I see?

Why yes, I do believe they are.

Photo credit:
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/10/call-em-young-guns.html

I hope God gives the press immunity

2007-10-07T07:49:00.000-07:00

"A London Times' reporter interviewed a 23-year-old homicide bomber with knowledge about explosives and a degree in chemistry about his trek to kill Americans.

Ahmed talked with steady self-assurance about his plans to follow in his brother's footsteps, who blew himself up at a drinks stall in Iraq where American soldiers were nearby.

The young man helped his brother get ready for his mission, packing TNT into pouches with some nails and strapping the bomb to his 19-year-old brother's waist. He also slipped wire rings onto his brother's fingers and attached them to a fourth detonator in the palm of his hand, with directions to head towards the American soldiers.

“Go sell them some Pepsi,” Ahmed told him gently. “We will meet in heaven, you and I, and that’s a promise.”

Ahmed says his brother kissed him, turned and walked away without a moment’s hesitation.

Ahmed has a different mission than his brother. He plans to pass through Syria on his way to die in Iraq to kill CIA officers."

So let me get this straight:

This reporter had foreknowledge of an act of terrorism that would kill many people and he did nothing?

How many lives did he just sell out so he could sell newspapers?

In my country, we call that treason. I don't care if he's a brit; we're supposed to be on the same side.

If my son was killed in Iraq by this guy and this reporter just sat and did nothing with people's lives in danger, I would sue the dog $#!+ out of him and the London Times.

Would this same reporter have interviewed Nazi's during WWII before going out to kill british soldiers? Oh, I forgot, the jihadists said they wanted kill evil Americans, not brits. That's ok, then.

This is the same as when Satan's Bible--er, I mean the New York Times--printed classified information about how Homeland Security keeps Americans safe and when that CNN reporter hung out with those terrorists while they were killing American soldiers to get a story. Traitorous scumbags.

I'd love to hear his answer when God asks him why he did nothing to stop someone from murdering his children. Last time I checked, He didn't give a free pass to journalists.

Liberal propagansists (aka 'journalists') in the media are traitors.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299902,00.html

Pope criticizes Islamic intolerance of other faiths

2007-10-05T15:26:00.000-07:00

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=483202&in_page_id=1811

"The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries."

In accordance with the Bukhari collection of Hadith (Hadith being collections of sayings and actions of Mohammed), the most authoritative hadith collection among all flavors of Islam, from Bukhari Vol. 9, Book 84, Num. 57 which says:

"Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

This seems to contradict Quran Sura 2:256 which spokesmen for CAIR often quote, "there is no compulsion in religion" Going on:

"In a clear reference to Islam, he said: "The exercise of this freedom also includes the right to change religion, which should be guaranteed not only legally, but also in daily practice."

Addressing the problem of Islamic extremism, he added: "Terrorism is a serious problem whose perpetrators often claim to act in God's name and harbour an inexcusable contempt for human life."

The supposed contradiction is for them to figure out. I'd just like the sanctity of life, in accordance with the Natural Law, to be embraced by all people's everywhere. In Saudi Arabia this is especially poignant, where just bringing a bible into the country can land you in jail or worse.

There's also another interesting snippet from the article:

"His latest comments, however, come just days after one of the Church of England's-senior bishops warned that Muslim leaders here must speak out in defence of the right to change faith.

The Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, told Channel 4's Dispatches programme of his fears for the safety of the estimated 3,000 Muslims who have converted to other faiths in this country.

A poll earlier this year of more than 1,000 young adult British Muslims found that 36 per cent believe those who convert to another faith should be punished by death."

36%?!

Excuse my language but "tiny minority of extremists" my ass.

I know I just went over how a person has no moral right to false worship. Call me an islamophobe, but isn't the death penalty a little steep for apostasy? I don't like it when people leave the Church but in no way do I desire their execution.

Just for the sake of argument, let's say this poll is somehow skewed and extremists account for only 1% of all muslims. 1% of the popular quote of 1.2 billion is still 12 million people. It only took 10 extremists to kill 3,000 people on 9/11.

All I wish is that the other 64% of muslims who actually believe there is no compulsion in religion stand up and publicly denounce such violations of human life. So far, their silence has been deafening.

Woman awarded $6.1m for stupidity

2007-10-05T14:21:00.000-07:00

A McDonald's in Shepherdsville, Kentucky recieved a prank call, the caller saying he was a police officer and asking the assistant maganer to strip search a woman whom the caller said had stolen from a customer.

The assistant manager then handed the phone to her fiancee for him to perform the strip-search. The prank-caller then told the fiancee to perform sexual acts upon the woman, which he did.

The whole thing was caught on surveillence video.

The prank-caller was aquitted of the charges brought against him. The assistant manager was fired and was convicted of a misdemeanor. Her fiancee is now serving 5 1/2 years in prison for the incident. The "victim" sued McDonals'd for $200m and recieved a victory and $6.1m.

Did she run out of the room screaming rape? No, she went along with the whole thing, it's on the video. Did the thought ever cross her mind that a perfect stranger is not allowed to strip-search her? I guess not. How about the absurdity of a cop telling said stranger to have sex with her? Nope. Is she mentally retarded or handicapped in any way? No, the article would have said so. Is she a young impressionable girl? No, she's 21 years old, fully responsible for her actions.

Now, I'm not saying that the prank-call, nor the actions of the guy who strip searched her was an upright moral decision; The guy was obviously taking advantage of the situation.

But the fact of the matter is, there is basically two kinds of sex as far as the law is concerned; consentual and rape. This woman was definitely not raped, she went along with the whole thing. And it's hard to say she's not smart enough to see the absurdity in the whole thing.

Here's what it boils down to: an opportunistic pig of a man had consensual sex with a willing woman. The media gets a hold of it, embarasses the crap out of her, she feels stupid and wants to get back at people. She doesn't sue the guy who she had sex with, she doesn't sue the assistant manager, nor does she sue the prank-caller. No, she sues the person with the deepest pockets; McDonald's.

A pervert gets 5 1/2 years in prison and the 21yo woman he had consensual sex with skips away with $6.1m paid to her by a company who had no fault in the incident. All because she felt stupid. That's obviously sexist. I won't defend what he did, but having consensual sex and one person getting 5 1/2 years in prison with the other walking away with $6.1m is rediculous and sexist of the worst kind.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Oct05/0,4670,StripSearchHoax,00.html

Connecticut Bishops and Plan B

2007-10-01T19:01:00.000-07:00

There's a lot of discussion over the Connecticut's Bishops decision to allow the contraceptive pill Plan B in Catholic hospitals.

The current policy from the USCCB is thus:

"A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum [n. 36]."

But what about Evangelium Vitae and Humanae Vitae?

According to Jimmy Akin, contraception is condemned in those documents during conjugal intercourse. There is no provision for rape. That's the loophole.

The pertinent part of the bishops' statement is this:

"Since the teaching authority of the Church has not definitively resolved this matter and since there is serious doubt about how Plan B pills work, the Catholic Bishops of Connecticut have stated that Catholic hospitals in the State may follow protocols that do not require an ovulation test in the treatment of victims of rape. A pregnancy test approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration suffices. If it becomes clear that Plan B pills would lead to an early chemical abortion in some instances, this matter would have to be reopened. "

As far as I know, and I'm no doctor, Plan B functions by preventing an egg from attaching itself to the uterine wall. No egg present, no pregnancy. The debate comes in whether or not Plan B causes the same effect on a fertilized egg. At this point no one knows.

I would assume so, but a fertilized egg is very chemically different than an unfertilized egg, so I don't know.

As we read above, the USCCB mandates that before administering a potential abortifacient that an ovulation test must be performed to determine the possibility of pregnancy.

The Connecticut bishops maintain that since the abortifacient potential of Plan B is unknown, that an ovulation test is unnecessary. They say an FDA-approved pregnancy test is sufficient.

Again, I'm no doctor, but it is my understanding that a pregnancy test can only detect a pregnancy after eight or so weeks. If a woman is in the hospital immediately following a rape the test will obviously not show a pregnancy.

Second, those bishops are being very irresponsible here; they forego the ovulation test due to the uncertainty of the abortifacient potential of Plan B. The responsible thing to do would at least continue to test for ovulation precisely because of that uncertainty. Better safe than sorry.

Third, just because the USCCB found a loophole doesn't mean it's morally licit. If a woman can get contraceptive medication from a violent act that is missing the component of love, then any women can do the same after a non-violent act equally without the component of love.

One act was done out of violence and hate, the other out of lust and indifference. Either way it lacks the integral component of love. Same thing.

The most glaring point of all this is that if there is no evidence of ovulation, meaning there is no threat of pregnancy, why bother administer the contraceptive medication at all?

And lastly, two wrongs don't make a right. Just because a woman's right to not be sexually assaulted was violated doesn't mean we can go ahead and violate a potential human's right to exist. (I say potential because I'm talking about ovulation and that it could possibly be an embryo.)

Onan was struck dead by God for spilling his seed upon the ground to avoid pregnancy. Here, this drug causes a woman to spill her seed on the ground to avoid pregnancy. How is it different?
This situation isn't as complicated as people make it out to seem. There is a definite moral answer to this.

This is the first step on a slippery slope. I hope Rome deals with this soon.

Info taken from:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/09/bad-news-in-c-1.html
and:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/09/bad-news-in-con.html

Quis Ut Deus? Feast of St. Michael

2007-09-29T16:02:00.000-07:00

Blurb from today's entry on www.catholicculture.org:

St. Michael

The name of the archangel Michael means, in Hebrew, who is like unto God? and he is also known as "the prince of the heavenly host." He is usually pictured as a strong warrior, dressed in armor and wearing sandals. His name appears in Scripture four times, twice in the Book of Daniel, and once each in the Epistle of St. Jude and the Book of Revelation. From Revelation we learn of the battle in heaven, with St. Michael and his angels combatting Lucifer and the other fallen angels (or devils). We invoke St. Michael to help us in our fight against Satan; to rescue souls from Satan, especially at the hour of death; to be the champion of the Jews in the Old Testament and now Christians; and to bring souls to judgment.

This day is referred to as "Michaelmas" in many countries and is also one of the harvest feast days. In England this is one of the "quarter days", which was marked by hiring servants, electing magistrates, and beginning of legal and university terms. This day also marks the opening of the deer and other large game hunting season. In some parts of Europe, especially Germany, Denmark, and Austria, a special wine called "Saint Michael's Love" (Michelsminne) is drunk on this day. The foods for this day vary depending on nationality. In the British Isles, for example, goose was the traditional meal for Michaelmas, eaten for prosperity, France has waffles or Gaufres and the traditional fare in Scotland used to be St. Michael's Bannock (Struan Micheil) — a large, scone-like cake. In Italy, gnocchi is the traditional fare.

Patron: Against temptations; against powers of evil; artists; bakers; bankers; battle; boatmen; cemeteries; coopers; endangered children; dying; Emergency Medical Technicians; fencing; grocers; hatmakers; holy death; knights; mariners; mountaineers; paramedics; paratroopers; police officers; radiologists; sailors; the sick; security forces; soldiers; against storms at sea; swordsmiths; those in need of protection; Brussels, Belgium; Caltanissett, Sicily; Cornwall, England; Diocese of Pensacola-Tallahassee Florida; England; Germany; Archdiocese of Mobile, Alabama; Papua, New Guinea; Puebla, Mexico; San Miguel de Allende, Mexico; Sibenik, Croatia; Archdiocese of Seattle, Washington; Diocese of Springfield, Massachusetts.

Symbols: Angel with wings; dressed in armour; lance and shield; scales; shown weighing souls; millstone; piercing dragon or devil; banner charged with a dove; symbolic colors orange or gold.

That Michelsminne wine sounds tasty.

Strangest Mating Ritual Ever

2007-09-28T16:30:00.000-07:00

I know this is very off-topic but I just had to share.

Jumping spider puts on the moves

What a Waste

2007-09-27T06:55:00.000-07:00

Credit to Gerald at The Cafeteria is Closed for this one. Notice the beautiful high altar in the background? Such a nice church to be degraded by this:

I don't think I need to remind us about this kind of thing, but I will just feel a little better:

The Congregation of Divine Worship

"The dance has never been made an integral part of the official worhship of the Latin Church.
If local churches have accepted the dance, sometimes even in the church building, that was on the occasion of feasts in order to manifest sentiments of joy and devotion. But that always took place outside of liturgical services.

Conciliar decisions have often condemned the religious dance because it conduces little to worship and because it could degenerate into disorders.

[. . .]

However, the same criterion and judgment cannot be applied in the western culture.
Here dancing is tied with love, with diversion, with profaneness, with unbridling of the senses: such dancing, in general, is not pure. For that reason it cannot be introduced into liturgical celebrations of any kind whatever: that would be to inject into the liturgy one of the most desacralized and desacralizing elements; and so it would be equivalent to creating an atmosphere of profaneness which would easily recall to those present and to the participants in the celebration worldly places and situations.

Neither can acceptance be had of the proposal to introduce into the liturgy the so-called artistic ballet[2] because there would be presentation here also of a spectacle at which one would assist, while in the liturgy one of the norms from which one cannot prescind is that of participation."

From Cardinal Arinze

"Why make the people of God suffer so much? Haven't we enough problems already? Only Sunday, one hour, they come to adore God. And you bring a dance! Are you so poor you have nothing else to bring us? Shame on you! That's how I feel about it.

Somebody can say, "but the pope visited this county and the people danced". A moment: Did the pope arrange it? Poor Holy Father -- he comes, the people arranged. He does not know what they arranged. And somebody introduces something funny -- is the pope responsible for that? Does that mean it is now approved? Did they put in on the table of the Congregation for Divine
Worship? We would throw it out! If people want to dance, they know where to go."

From Benedict XVI

Dancing is not a form of expression for the Christian liturgy. In about the third century, there was an attempt in certain Gnostic-Docetic circles to introduce it into the liturgy. For these people, the Crucifixion was only an appearance. . . . Dancing could take the place of the liturgy of the Cross, because, after all, the Cross was only an appearance. The cultic dances of the different religions have different purposes - incantation, imitative magic, mystical ecstasy - none of which is compatible with the essential purpose of the liturgy as the "reasonable sacrifice". It is totally absurd to try to make the liturgy "attractive" by introducing dancing pantomimes (wherever possible performed by professional dance troupes), which frequently (and rightly, from the professionals' point of view) end with applause. Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. Such attraction fades quickly - it cannot compete in the market of leisure pursuits, incorporating as it increasingly does various forms of religious titillation."

Blogger's Quiz

2007-09-27T05:42:00.000-07:00

Karin at Wife and Mom of Two/ Got me with this one :)

1. Do you attend the Traditional Latin Mass or the Novus Ordo?
I attend the TLM as much as I can. I attend the NO if I miss the TLM or when my mother asks me to attend mass with her.

2. If you attend the TLM, how far do you drive to get there?
Google says I go about 17 miles.

3. If you had to apply a Catholic label to yourself, what would it be?
Taking PMG's advice and looking at Terry's labels I feel I fit in the Traditonal Catholic group. Though I've been called many other names as well, haha. I guess I could be called a Catholic Nerd too, by how much I have my nose in some Church document or bit of history from Newadvent.

4. Are you a comment junkie?
Being an addict of online bulletin boards, of course I am!

5. Do you go back to read the comments on the blogs you’ve commented on?
Always! I want to see if anyone brought up another good point or takes issue with what I or anyone else says to make a good defense.

6. Have you ever left an anonymous comment on another blog?
Nope. I stand by my words and take responsibility for what I say, and am always willing to make a defense for my statements. I can't stand "hit-and-run" comments, so I don't make the same mistake.

7. Which blogroll would you most like to be on?
Any of em! I think I've aready been added to all of my favorites except Rorate Caeli. I remember When I was first added to Salve Regina (first add I had) it really made my day. It felt very special. The same as when the cannonball added me to her blog too. I could go on and on!

8. Which blog is the first one you check?
I usually just run down my list on the sidebar. But if I'm in a hurry I hit Lair of the Catholic Caveman, Salve Regina, The Cafeteria is Closed, The Crescat, usually in that order. If there's a particularly involved discussion on one of the comboxes I usually check that one first to see if there's anything new.

9. Have you met any other bloggers in person?
Nope.

10. What are you reading?
Other than Warhammer novels from Black Library, I don't read that much non-fiction. Like I said it's usually some Church document or Newadvent article. The last few titles I've read are "Duty Calls" (Warhammer 40K), "Without Roots" Ratzinger / Perra, Dante's Inferno, and "City of God" by Augustine. Next up is "Jesus of Nazareth" by Benedict XVI, and to begin the Horus Heresy series with "Horus Rising" (Warhammer 40k).

I pass this quiz to:
The Cannonball at The Crescat/
The Caveman at Lair of the Catholic Cavemen/
Marty at Marty's
Fr. Richsteig at Orthometer/
Gerald Augustinus at The Cafeteria is Closed/

Communion is no time for mediation or adoration!

2007-09-26T06:30:00.000-07:00

On yet another forum, a poster (who is Catholic) expressed her distaste in the choice of "Blessed Be Your Name" as the communion hymn, and how she should go about voicing her concerns to the pastor. When other posters started shooting her down she replied,

"I just thought that the song was not conducive to the meditative nature that should be cultivated during Communion...but I guess I am wrong."

To which another poster replied,

"You are, in fact, wrong. A meditative nature should not be cultivated during communion. Find a perpetual adoration chapel if you want to meditate on the Eucharist."

When another poster agreed with the one who made the above comment they replied,

"Notice a trend here? Those of us who work full time in administering the liturgy seem to agree that communion is not a time for adoration. Maybe we know something you don't!"

(. . .said the Spirit of Vatican II.)

When asked for evidence that after communon is no time for meditating this was provided from Music in Catholic Worship from the USCCB website:

"62. The communion song should foster a sense of unity. It should be simple and not demand great effort. It gives expression to the joy of unity in the body of Christ and the fulfillment of the mystery being celebrated. Because they emphasize adoration rather than communion, most benediction hymns are not suitable."

Call me a schismatic SSPX'er, but I have a huge problem with that.

When doesn't God deserve adoration? Are we supposed to just turn our adoration switches off during communion because it's "People Time"? We have just recieved the Body, Blood soul and divinit of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity, which is GOD into ourselves and this is somehow not the time to meditate on it, or give God worship for that we have recieved Him into ourselves?

I understand that even St. Ignatius of Antioch stessed the importance of being one and celebrating one Eucharist in union with the bishop. But even he understood that communion is God first, people second, not vise versa.

This is from a document written by the Committee on the Liturgy in the USCCB. Who's the head of that committee?

Trautman.

I'll conclude with my favorite prayer after communion from the 1962 missal:

Behold, I am in the possession of the Sovereign Good. The first thought, O God, with which Thy presence inspires me, is a sentiment of adoration and respect. Yes, under these sacred veils, where Thy love for me hath concealed the splendor of Thy Majesty, I most humbly adore Thee. I acknowledge Thee as my Master, my Creator, and the Supreme Arbiter of my eternal destiny. But these thoughts are absorbed in the greatness of my confidence. Thou art glorious in heaven, all-powerfull on earth and terrible in hell; But in the Blessed Eucharist Thou art mild, consoling, sweet, and liberal. Ah, what canst Thou refuse me, when Thou hast given me Thyself?

I assume this prayer's no good since it's about God and worship and not about people?

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=186204

The Ongoing Debate on Headcoverings

2007-09-25T11:23:00.000-07:00

On the forums I go on, every month or so there seems to be yet another argument that has to do with the canonical status for headcoverings.

I've heard all of the arguments, both citing canon law.

The argument supporting it is optional can be read Here:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2004/07/head_coverings_.html

The argument supporting veiling is still in force can be read here:
http://www.fisheaters.com/theveil.html

A rebuttal by Robert Sungenis to Jimmy Akin and Colin Donovan in favor of veiling can be read here:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/covering.htm

And here:
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/head-covering1.htm

The argument generally centers around whether or not the abrogation of the 1917 law by the 1983, with the '83's omission of the issue of veiling actually removed the force of law behind this custom.

For me, at least in my opinion, the issue is quite simple:

The 1983 code abrogated the 1917.

The 1983 code doesn't mention veiling as having the force of law.

BUT, veiling didn't get its force of law form the 1917 code alone. It recieved its force of law from the fact that it is an immemorial custom.

The 1983 code may have removed any force of law veiling recieved from the 1917 code, but it did not, and cannot, remove it as an immemorial custom, unless specifically saying so (which it doesn't). And it's from that, not the code, veiling recieves the force of law.

Plus, it's in the bible. (1Cor 11:3-15)

But what I feel this whole argument is missing is that women should wear the veil because it's good to do so, not because they're told to. To make a comparison, the ideal reason you desire that children will behave is because they understand parental guidance and willfully desire good behavior, not out of fear of punishment if they don't.

You can apply the same thing to obedience of the faithful. I'd rather a person veil themself because they want to, not because they have to. It means much more when they understand the importance and virtue behind the practice.

Would I support a revision that would make it law again? I think so. I'm almost jealous that women have such a pious devotion open to them. (I'd veil myself all the time at mass except it's against scripture and just plain wierd.) But if a person's heart isn't veiled then veiling only their head won't do much. I think that the devotion must first come internally and then externalize. Otherwise it's merely going through the motions.

"... you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness...first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean."

Children to be indoctrinated with sexual deviancy in CA schools

2007-09-24T21:53:00.000-07:00

I know this is a bit old, I just never heard about it before.

"The California State Senate passed legislation requiring students from kindergarten through twelfth grade to support instruction on homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.

The bill, known as SB 777, requires textbooks and other instructional resources to cast a positive light on homosexual "marriages," cross-dressing, sex-change operations and every other facet of homosexual and bisexual lifestyles.

Parental consent will not be needed for students to receive this instruction.
School-sponsored activities such as the prom, sports activities and cheerleading must also uphold these guidelines on alternative sexuality."

This stuff is ok yet teaching abstinence (aka "common sense") is banned because it's labeled a "religious practice". (Nice excuse. It's banned becaue it's merely contrary to their agenda.)

It's no wonder someday California will fall into the ocean. The city with the highest murder rate in the country was destroyed by a hurricane. Coincidence?

As theists, do we really believe in mere coincidence?

How much longer before laws are passed that makes criticism of "LBGT" lifestyles hate speach?

It happened in Scotland.

It happened in Canada.

It almost happened here.

Now it's happeneing in our schools.

Mel Gibson to play Polish King in Siege of Vienna Film

2007-09-24T03:29:00.000-07:00

There's talk that Mel Gibson will direct and star in the Polish Film "Victory" depicting the Siege of Vienna by Ottoman turks in 1683:

Reports have emerged that Mel 'Madmax' Gibson has been approached to play King Jan Sobieski in an epic movie about the 1683 Siege of Vienna.

Wroclaw-based producer Mariusz Bielak would like Gibson to both star in and direct the picture, and he is optimistic that the Australian maverick will come on board: Bielak was quoted as saying in Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza. "It's his cup of tea.'

'Jan III Sobieski was a charismatic figure' Harasimowicz told GW .' He was a great strategist, a phenomenal knight, and to cap it all, head over heels in love with his wife. This is the kind of figure that Mel Gibson played in 'Braveheart'. But this is a less tragic role - Sobieski triumphed

The Siege of Vienna is regarded by historians as a turning point in European History. The Catholic Alliance - led by the Polish King - saw off the Turkish threat to Central Europe.

Perhaps this will wake up Europe and realize they were almost Eurabia over 300 years ago.

A Light in the Tunnel

2007-09-21T09:17:00.000-07:00

Just a quick one:

I just noticed that Mahony, Brown, and Trautman (Who is firmly against the new translation of the missal and just hapens to be the head of the commission on the liturgy in the USCCB.) will reach retirement age in four years, Brown being the last in Nov. 2011.

Just a little more than a month after that it will be 2012, the year, iirc, the Mayan calendar stops and the end of the world is predicted. Or, at least, the world as we know it.

(Note: No, I don't put stock in pagan prophecies, I'm just having a bit of fun, that's all. ;) )

New N.O. Missal to be completed by 2009

2007-09-20T03:27:00.000-07:00

Finally, an update on this from Catholic News Service.

"After meeting at the Vatican Sept. 2-6, the Vox Clara Committee said it hoped the English translation of the Roman Missal would be completed and approved by the end of 2009.

"The members found the texts to be excellent, although suggestions were made for ways in which the choice of alternate words or phrases could render a few sections more faithful to the Latin original or easier to proclaim and comprehend," (PRO MULTIS = FOR MANY! BAH!) the statement said.

It said the final draft translation for the missal should be published by next spring. Then ICEL will complete a second draft, taking into account the reactions of English-language bishops' conferences (I dunno if I like that...) and the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments. (That's not so bad. Although I disagree with Arinze's resistence to Summorum Pontificum, I highly favor his Redeptionis Sacramentum and Liturgiam Authenticam, and feel they are spot-on and very needed. Not to mention his thorough criticism of liturgical dance.)

After that, the bishops' conferences vote on the second draft. The Vatican's worship and sacraments congregation then takes final action, considering any eventual amendments that are proposed by bishops' conferences." (And let's hope Arinze gives Trautman the proverbial finger.)

Let's also hope Trautman is absent on those voting days.

Even though I'm rather dedicated to the TLM, I'd still love to see reforms to the new mass. Arinze has outlined grave abuses and Summorum Pontificum is set to have the TLM "infect" the new mass, and there's hopefully a better missal on the way. Now all that has to be done is to enforce it all. (Of course, that's the hardest part.)

Hoyos: Faithful have a RIGHT to the TLM

2007-09-18T18:29:00.000-07:00

From an interview on Zenit:

"Q: Your Eminence, this document was accompanied by fear and polemics. What is not true about what has been said or read?

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos: It is not true, for example, that power was taken away from bishops over the liturgy, because the Code of Canon Law says who must give permission to say Mass and it is not the bishop: The bishop gives the "celebret," the power to be able to celebrate, but when a priest has this power, it is the parish priest and the chaplain who must grant the altar to celebrate.

If anyone impedes him, it is up to the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in the name of the Holy Father, to take measures until this right -- which is a right that is clear to the faithful by now -- is respected."

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, hippies!

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-20492

Me thinks he doth protest too much.

2007-09-18T05:03:00.000-07:00

Rorate Caeli reports that the Bishop of Caserta, Raffaele Nogaro, on Sunday evening called Father Giovanni Battista Gionti, the rector of the Shrine of Saint Anne of Casertam, "and ordered him to suspend the celebration" (TLM).

Apparently, this guy lets muslims and schismatics use his facilities for their worship:

"Who grants the diocesan structure of the Tent of Abraham to Muslims for the Friday prayers and the chapel adjacent to the Cathedral of Caserta to the Ukrainian and Moldavian Orthodox."

So it's ok for non-Catholics to use it for their non-Catholic worship, but heaven forbid if a treasure of Catholic heritage is celebrated there. . . Here's what he had to say for himself:

"Right - he says - because to help people pray is an honorable effort. While to grumble in Latin does not serve any purpose whatsoever.

"The faithful must be offered something which is valuable and educational, not occasions of disorientation. And I maintain that numbing them with sacred images is only choreography and roleplaying. A useless aesthetic object which does not convey anything."

Ok, so how does Arabic, Slavonic, or Romanian help the Italians in Italy, if Latin does not? Where does he get off saying, "...is only choreography and roleplaying"? Say the black, do the red. That is your job. What is he so affraid of?

2007-09-17T02:47:00.000-07:00

A rather interesting story from Catholic News Service:

"LONDON (CNS) -- British musicians recorded the classic Irish hymn, "Sweet Heart of Jesus," in a calypso, disco style and sent it to Pope Benedict XVI on an iPod nano.

The musicians' intention, however, was to soften the pope's attitude toward modern church music. The gift is from contemporary Catholic songwriters Jo Boyce and Mike Stanley, and it features a new album of classic hymns reworked in modern forms of music. The duo has used instruments such as pianos, saxophones, guitars, drums and synthesizers to recreate centuries-old works in laid-back gospel, folk, funk, soul and lounge-music styles.

The album, "Age to Age," was downloaded onto an iPod and sent to Pope Benedict in the hope of gaining a "papal seal of approval,"

The move is something of a gamble given that Pope Benedict, an aficionado of classical music, said in 1996 that rock music was not very uplifting for the soul and certainly did not belong in church. "

Apparently, liberal Catholics, like rapists, don't know that NO means NO.

Somehow they think the more they chant their demands and the louder they chant that the Pope will all of a sudden give in. Jesus said to be like children, not act like them.

That Explains It

2007-09-16T17:09:00.000-07:00

Hideous, huh?

People have been wondering why exactly, after the pope has shown himself to favor the more traditional expressions of our spirituality, why in the world would he be wearing hippie vestments?

At first I thought it was like some project from a local elementary school where kids tye-dyed stuff and the pope, not wanting to offend, agreed to wear them. Y'know, for the kids.

But then I saw everyone was wearing them and figured nothing short of mexican sweat-shop style production could've put out such a copious amount liturgical eyesores.

Well Fr. Z over at WDTPRS has found that even the ultra liberal Viennese (Just check out the Catholic Church COnservation blog to see what I mean) wanted him to wear baroque vestments. Then why didn't he?

The MC, Rev. Piero Marini, overrode them and made the Pope wear the hippie-pancho.

Well at least we know that the Pope is sticking to his traditional guns, that it wasn't his choice.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2007/09/the-austrian-vestment-debacle/

Guess Who?

2007-09-15T17:06:00.000-07:00

Who do you think wrote this?

"Although it may sound like a strange thing for a theologian to say, as the final means of effecting a better awareness of God’s saving presence in all religions, theological dialogue is less important than the other three forms of dialogue. It is by necessity limited to a narrow circle of experts and often deals with subjects too recondite for the average believer. More crucially, theological exchange presupposes the other three dialogues, and ideally is deeply rooted in them. As is clear from the history of theology, dogmas and doctrines are almost always framed in controversies and frozen in texts that are intelligible only in their historical contexts. It is only within the dialogues of life, action, and religious experience that one can obtain an accurate gauge of the relative importance-or, to use an expression of Vatican II, the “hierarchy of truths”-of these doctrines."

No, it's not who you think.

This is an excerpt from an article written by one Fr. Peter Phan (not a joke), who is now under investigation by the CDF (Or as I like to call it, "The Congregation Formerly Know as the Inquisition") for theological discrepencies found in a book he wrote, which supports elements of indifferentism and religious pluralism, while downplaying the uniqueness of Christ and the role of His Church. Fr. Phan has also been a strong critic of Dominus Iesus. Hat tip to Gerald over at the Closed Cafeteria. (Linked on the sidebar)

Gerald's entry:
http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com/2007/09/peter-phan-soon-to-work-at-wendys.html

Phan's article:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1828

Exaltation of the Holy Cross, the Triumph of Summorum Pontificum

2007-09-14T03:42:00.000-07:00

Today is the big day.

The day all of us have been waiting for; the day the Mass of Ages finally is given the proper respect and recognition it is due.

If you are unable to attend a TLM today, then perhaps try to attend any mass. Failing that, EWTN has scheduled a televised High Mass, beginning at 8:00AM EST. If this is too early for some of you, they will show an encore presentation at 6:00PM EST.

If you don't have EWTN in your home, you can watch it for free from their website, provided you have a fast enough internet connection.

Failing that, well, have a blessed day! (Oh, and say a rosary for the Pope!)

For information on the history and significance of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross, Fisheaters has a wonderful article on it:

http://www.fisheaters.com/customstimeafterpentecost7.html

UPDATE: The televised TLM on EWTN was absolutely beautiful, but experienced technical difficulties from just after the consecration of the bread to about the people's communion. Bad time to have such difficulties, given the importance of this broadcast, but other than that it was fine.

The homily was superb, very comprehensive; He highlighted the importance of the Extraordinary Form, the Importance of the Exaltation of the Cross, and above all the importance of today's gospel, and a focus on actual participation means, and the importance of latin; Each topic intertwining with the next.

I'll be sure to post it here if EWTN puts it in their archive.

Pius IX and Modern Democratic Freedoms

2007-09-13T21:01:00.000-07:00

I was asked a series of questions in the comments section on another blog dealing with the Church's stance on religious freedom, freedom of conscience, separation fo Church and state, etc.

Since this isn't the first time these issues have come up I feel it worthy to explain it here.

First, let's look at what freedom actually is:

CCC #1739 "...Man's freedom is limited and fallible. In fact, man failed. He freely sinned. By refusing God's plan of love, he deceived himself and became a slave to sin. This first alienation engendered a multitude of others. From its outset, human history attests the wretchedness and oppression born of the human heart in consequence of the abuse of freedom."

CCC #1740 ". . . The exercise of freedom does not imply a right to say or do everything. It is false to maintain that man, "the subject of this freedom," is "an individual who is fully self-sufficient and whose finality is the satisfaction of his own interests in the enjoyment of earthly goods." ... By deviating from the moral law man violates his own freedom, becomes imprisoned within himself, disrupts neighborly fellowship, and rebels against divine truth."

CCC #1742 ". . . The grace of Christ is not in the slightest way a rival of our freedom when this freedom accords with the sense of the true and the good that God has put in the human heart. On the contrary, as Christian experience attests especially in prayer, the more docile we are to the promptings of grace, the more we grow in inner freedom and confidence during trials"

CCC #1744 "Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good."

So from reading this we see that true freedom is acting in accordance with God's will. That is, when acting in a moral fashion. We have free will to choose evil but not the God-given moral right to do so. By acting immorally, we have violated our freedom. Only by acting along the moral law are we trully free, immorality imprisons us. Our free will is unlimited, but our freedom is not. We may will ourselves to do evil but we have no freedom or right to do so.

These arguments are mostly derived from Pius IX's syllabus of errors, and his encyclical, Quanta Cura.

First, let's deal with freedom of conscience:

From Quanta Cura:

". . . thence it appears why it is that some, utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law, free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are accomplished, have the force of right."

From the Syllabus of Errors:

3. Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself, and suffices, by its natural force, to secure the welfare of men and of nations. -- Ibid.

4. All the truths of religion proceed from the innate strength of human reason; hence reason is the ultimate standard by which man can and ought to arrive at the knowledge of all truths of every kind. -- Ibid. and Encyclical "Qui pluribus," Nov. 9, 1846, etc.

To understand this fully, we must ask ourselves: Do we have the God-given right to think and do things that are outside of God's will? Do we have a moral right to dissent with that, as long as it's reasonable?

No, for morality is God's will. Anything contrary to that is immoral. We do not have a moral right to immorality.

We have free-will, with which we can accept or reject God's will. But we know that if we reject it, even though it is with our God-given free will, we will be damned. Just because we can do something doesn't mean it's always permissable and just. That's the beauty of free will; God wants us to choose to do His will, not be forced to do His will. That uncoerced choice is what God wants.

These passages are dealing with moral relativism. As long as the human mind can rationalize it, it must be OK.

Wrong.

What Pius IX is condemning here is placing the human reason above that of God; that human reason alone determines what is right. Objective truth has been destroyed by popular vote. If the majority thinks it's right then it is. If it can be rationalized then it's ok. Well sometimes the majority can be objectively wrong. This is what is condemned; the usurping of God from right and wrong and replacing him with our own imperfect reason.

There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. We do not have the right (a right being a choice or entitlement where either decision will have no ill consequences) to choose evil. Evil is not acceptable to God. Anything Contrary to God's will is unacceptable to Him. Our free will allows us to choose it, but we have no right to it.

Next, let's deal with Freedom of Religion:

From Quanta Cura:

". . . called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity,"2 viz., that "liberty of conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society; and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil, whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;"3 and that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion, there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

From the Syllabus of Errors:

15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852.

79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. -- Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856.

Relating to my earlier commentary, if we do not have the right to relativize morality, do we have the right to falsely worship? All Catholics can agree, at least I hope, that non-Catholic worship is false worship, and is sinful. Is there a time where God allows, or gives us a right to sin?

Like I stated before, just because we can that doesn't mean we should. If a religion is sacrilegous and blasphemous and is an obvious affront to God, do we have the God-given right to practice it?

No we do not. For the same reason we have no moral right to dissent and disobey God's will, we have no moral right to false worship. All religions are not morally equivalent. That is the heresy of idifferentism. There is true worship and there is false worship. Being intellectually honest to our faith there is no reason why we should support the practice of false worship.

Being Catholic we know the truth which puts more responsibility on us. We know that God abhors false worship, even from the ignorant. Culpable or not, a sin is still sin. There is never a time, ignorant or not, that we have a God-given right to sin.

Since the state recieves it's authority from God, the state cannot accept all religions as morally equivalent because God does not accept all religions as morally equivalent. Which leads us to the next part:

Separation of Church and State:

From Quanta Cura:

"For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones."

"And, since where religion has been removed from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is supplied by material force, "

"Moreover, not content with removing religion from public society, they wish to banish it also from private families. For, teaching and professing the most fatal error of "Communism and Socialism," they assert that "domestic society or the family derives the whole principle of its existence from the civil law alone; and, consequently, that on civil law alone depend all rights of parents over their children, and especially that of providing for education."

"For they are not ashamed of affirming "that the Church's laws do not bind in conscience unless when they are promulgated by the civil power; that acts and decrees of the Roman Pontiffs, referring to religion and the Church, need the civil power's sanction and approbation,"

From the Syllabus of Errors:

39. The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

44. The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church. . . . Nov. 1, 1850, and "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862.

54. Kings and princes are not only exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are superior to the Church in deciding questions of jurisdiction. -- Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

55. The Church ought to be separated from the .State, and the State from the Church. -- Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852

The authority of the State is God-given, and has a divine origin, as seen in the Catechism:

CCC #2234 "God's fourth commandment also enjoins us to honor all who for our good have received authority in society from God. It clarifies the duties of those who exercise authority as well as those who benefit from it."

CCC #2235 "Those who exercise authority should do so as a service. "Whoever would be great among you must be your servant."41 The exercise of authority is measured morally in terms of its divine origin, its reasonable nature and its specific object. No one can command or establish what is contrary to the dignity of persons and the natural law."

As we do not have the moral right to dissent against God's will, neither does the State (whose authority is God-given) have the right to enact laws or act in such a way that is contrary to God's will. The state has no right to separate itself from objective truth from which it derives its authority. Just as we do not have a moral right to immorality, neither does the state.

What is condemned here is the idea that the state can separate itself from God and set itself up as the author of truth. God no longer determines what is right and wrong, the state does. But most states determine this by popular vote. Again, we're back to moral relativism. If the state has recieved it's authority to rule from God, and the state then separates itself from God, then the state no longer has any authority. It has disconnected itself from the very source of it's authority. That authority is objective truth. Without that we have our feet planted firmly in the air.

So I hope this helps to clear up some things about Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors. Especially in this world, we can indulge our free wills almost as much as we wish, doing any number of immoral things, all within the law of the State. But the law of God is higher than the law of man. It is the law of God that gives the state it's authority. We, nor the State, have the moral right to do anything immoral. That is, to do evil.

Behold the fruit of the New Ecumenism

2007-09-13T14:02:00.000-07:00

This is from a combox entry on WC's blog that I feel shows why true evengelization needs to be brought back into the Church:

"As you know i am not catholic. probably invincibly ignorant. so I feel safe."

Is this the message this new ecumenism is sending?

It really says something when someone feels safe in their ignorance. Even WC has admitted, although having a heretical view of salvation, that Catholicism is the best path. How can one be complacent and "feel safe" when not on the best path?

This person will no doubt hear of this post. I'm telling them right here and now that invincible ignorance is not a free-pass to salvation. Your ignorance can help you or it can damn you. (Rom 2:15) There is no reason to feel safe. Outside visible union with the Church your soul is in grave danger. I urge you come into the bosom of the Church for the sake of your soul.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

2007-09-13T02:24:00.000-07:00

http://reform-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/09/john-paul-ii-on-other-faiths.html

Winnipeg Catholic over at Reformed Catholic wrote an entire post about little ol' me. I'm rather flattered (seriously) that someone would take the time to think about me long enough to inspire an entire post, be it good or bad. I thought I'd return the favor.

In this newest post, he refers to our debates regarding EENS. He goes so far as to say Pope John Paul II accepted other religions as other paths to salvation, just that ours is the best. He opens with:

"Well, I have received a lot of traffic lately from a Mr. Unitas who claims I am a heretic for statements along the lines of:'There are lots of paths to God but ours is the best one.'"

Like I've said before, this particular view he holds, among others, is in direct variance with Catholic teaching. All conotations aside, that is by definition, heresy.

He then goes on to quote from JP's "'Crossing the Threshold of Hope"to try to prove his point. I must admit, none of the quoted piece substantiates his claim that JP held other religions as other paths to salvation. (Go ahead and check the post) But there is an interesting sentence which I think is worth bringing up here:

"The church has a high regard for their conduct and way of life, for those precepts and doctrines which, although differing on many points from that which the Church believes and propounds, often reflect a ray of truth that enlightens all men."

Quite pastoral and warm and fuzzy. The last sentence there is what I'm getting at, "for those precepts and doctrines . . . often reflect a ray of truth..."

If they are other legitimate paths to salvation why do they only reflect truth instead of radiating the truth? If these other faiths merely reflect some truth, what is truth's source?

1Ti 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. " (There's that hi-lighter again!)

So it is not that they are legitimate paths to salvation, but are merely reflecting parts of the one path to salvation; The Catholic faith.

Which I'm affraid proves his statement:

"The grand point here is that one can attain salvation according to John Paul II through other faiths. These include Hinduism, Buddhism, et cetera."

False.

He also seems to have a thing against my "hi-lighter" (read the comments).

"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."

My only response is, if those documents, parts of which I emphasize, don't say what they say, then why do they say it?

"Insisting on emphasizing only the exclusive bits, now that's what I call cafeteria conservativism. And you will notice Unitas has his own bold face all over any document he cites. His little cafeterianist highlighter comes out so he can squash the church's liberal/tolerant/loving side."

More like I'm using a flashlight to find the good stuff in a pile of pastoral vagueness. The truth is there, you just gotta look for it. Plus, it would be unreasonable for me to paste entire documents on here; It's far easier to just get to the point and quote the pertinent parts and move on. If any of my readers feels I have left out important context that refutes any of my claims feel free to post them.

Coming from a person who derives their identity by adhering to the Winnipeg Statement who uses "Cafeterianist" as a perjorative in reference to me is a bit like the plank pointing out the speck, isn't it?

The Truth is much more important than "squashing", don't you think? It's just that when espousing the truth of the Catholic faith, liberal cafeteria Catholics end up squashed in the process. It's not the aim but merely the double-effect. I'm sure you understand. ;)

Be sure to note the differences between what I have said on this blog and what he claims I think:

"Think deeply about what Unitas is trying to derive from the documents he cites. He seems to be tempted far more in the direction of 'All non-catholics and liberal catholics are going to hell.' Is that charitable? Is that really what the church says? "

No, WC, you're right; That's not what the Church, nor I, say. I've just finished a lengthy but comprehensive treatment on my understanding of EENS just below this post, cited with selections from sacred scripture as well as pre and post-conciliar documents. In a comment to which post you allege John Paul II didn't adhere to the Catholic dogma of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus. That's quite an accusation. And at a Pope, no less.

"Everything John Paul II discusses in that chapter comes straight from the documents that Unitas cites. Thing is, Unitas loves to use bold print to emphasize the things HE wants you to take away from the text."

At least I emphasize what's actually written.

Your interpretation that JPII accepted other religions as paths to salvation isn't supported anywhere in your excerpt or in any of the documents I have ever cited. That's your injection into the text. That's what you wish everyone takes away from reading this, but it's just not there. Don't pee on your audience and tell them it's rain.

But WC shows that he's at least capable of behaving like a gentleman:

". . . but I can set that aside since from the looks of Unitas's blog he seems like a fairly decent fellow for a Rad-Trad."

See? He can be polite when he wants to be.

The Dreaded Dogma: E.E.N.S.

2007-09-12T20:39:00.000-07:00

EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS

Outside the Church there is no salvation.

The most misinterpretted Dogma, I think, in Catholic history.

Following is my understanding of the dogma, in accordance with the Magisterium.

First Part (Some grounding) :

- The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1Ti 3:15)

- The Church is the Body of Christ, only Christ being the way, the truth, and the life. The Catholic faith is the true faith, the only path that saves. (Eph 5:23, John 14:6)

- No one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the one Mediator. (John 14:6, 1Ti 2:5)

- He who rejects the Church, rejects Christ. And he who rejects Christ, rejects God the Father. (Luke 10:16, Mat 10:40)

Second Part (application. Points are substantiated with citations.) :

- God gives to man the initial grave of faith freely. Man cannot merit it for himself; it is a free gift of God. We are duty-bound to respond to that initial grace of faith to the fullest, in word and deed, with honesty and without bias. This search for truth, the fostering of this initial grace of faith, when conducted in this manner will ultimately lead to the Catholic Church.

Luke 19:11-27

CCC #2010 "Since the initiative belongs to God in the order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion."

Lumen Gentium: "All the Church's children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged. . . . All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation."

Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei: "7. Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate."

- The Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church is the repository of all revealed Truth and is necessary for the salvation of mankind.

1Ti 3:15

CCC #168 "It is the Church that believes first, and so bears, nourishes and sustains my faith. Everywhere, it is the Church that first confesses the Lord: "Throughout the world the holy Church acclaims you", as we sing in the hymn "Te Deum"; with her and in her, we are won over and brought to confess: "I believe", "We believe". It is through the Church that we receive faith and new life in Christ by Baptism. In the Rituale Romanum, the minister of Baptism asks the catechumen: "What do you ask of God's Church?" And the answer is: "Faith." "What does faith offer you?" "Eternal life."54

CCC #169 "Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith through the Church, she is our mother: "We believe the Church as the mother of our new birth, and not in the Church as if she were the author of our salvation."55 Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in the faith."

Unitatis Redinigratio: "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."

Pope Pius XII: "By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation: She alone, by herself, and under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, is the source of truth."

Lumen Gentium "In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism(124) and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

- There is recourse to those who through no fault of their own are ignorant of the Gospel and the Church, that through following the Natural Law written upon their hearts, there is a possibility they too may be saved.

Rom 2:15

Pope Pius XI, Quanto conficiamur moerore: "It is known to Us and to you that they who labor in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion and who, zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life, since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin."

Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadem: ". . . it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labor in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God."

CCC 847: "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.337"

- Invincible Ignorance is not automatic salvation, but only lessens a person culpability for not following the true faith due to circumstances that prevent the revealed truth from reaching him.

Rom 2:15

CCC #1735 "Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors."

- The Natural Law is a truth written upon the hearts of mankind by being made in His image. The nature if this truth is divinely revealed to mankind by God. Since the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth and She alone is the conduit which truth is revealed to mankind, (Both points cited earlier) the Natural Law, as is the Decalogue, is Catholic in nature. (As both the Natural Law and the Church are guided by the same Holy Spirit.)

Rom 2:15

St. Augustine "God wrote on the tables of the Law what men did not read in their hearts."

CCC #1956 "The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9"

- Therefore, salvation either by full knowledge and assent to the faith of Christ's Church, or under the exception of one who is invincibly ignorant yet righteous, both are saved by the one Truth entrusted by God to His Catholic Church alone. There is only one Truth, and only one path to salvation.

- Those outside the visible structure of the Church to whom the Truth of the Church has reached are no longer invincibly ignorant. (Opposite of CCC #847)

- Those who reject the Truth when it is revealed to them are not responding to the initial grace of faith with honesty and without bias, that leads all men to the Catholic Church. Their ignorance is not invincible but willful ignorance. Not only with they not be saved but they will be more severely judged. Free will was used to deny Christ's Truth.

Luke 19:11-27, 10:16, Mat 10:40

Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Jugiter Studio "Whoever has separated himself from the Catholic Church, no matter how laudably he lives, will not have eternal life, but has earned the anger of God because of this one crime: that he abandoned his union with Christ"

Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Singulari Quidem ". . . this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood."

Pope Pius IX, Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore "But, the Catholic dogma that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church is well-known; and also that those who are obstinate toward the authority and definitions of the same Church, and who persistently separate themselves from the unity of the Church, and from the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, to whom 'the guardianship of the vine has been entrusted by the Savior,' (Council of Chalcedon, Letter to Pope Leo I) cannot obtain eternal salvation. The words of Christ are clear enough: 'And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican' (Matthew 18:17); 'He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that dispeth you, despiseth Me; and he that dispiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me' (Luke 10:16); 'He that believeth not shall be condemned' (Mark 16:16); 'He that doth not believe, is already judged" (John 3:18); 'He that is not with Me, is against Me; and he that gathereth not with Me, scattereth' (Luke 11:23). The Apostle Paul says that such persons are 'perverted and self-condemned' (Titus 3:11); the Prince of the Apostles calls the 'false prophets ... who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction' (2 Peter 2:1)."

Lumen Gentium: "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. . . If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged."

CCC #1744-1745 " Freedom is the power to act or not to act, and so to perform deliberate acts of one's own. Freedom attains perfection in its acts when directed toward God, the sovereign Good. Freedom characterizes properly human acts. It makes the human being responsible for acts of which he is the voluntary agent. His deliberate acts properly belong to him."

- Our ignorance, depending on the nature of that ignorance, can mitigate our sins on the way to salvation or damn us to everlasting fire.

Rom 2:9-16

I hope that helps to clarify the dogma.

For All You Cafeteria Catholics Out There

2007-09-11T21:12:00.000-07:00

From Dominus Iesus:

"This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism “characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ‘one religion is as good as another'”.

Benedict XVI:

The successors of the Apostles, together with the Pope, are responsible for the truth of the Gospel, and all Christians are called to share in this responsibility, accepting its authoritative indications. Every Christian is bound to confront his own convictions continually with the teachings of the Gospel and of the Church’s Tradition in the effort to remain faithful to the word of Christ, even when it is demanding and, humanly speaking, hard to understand. We must not yield to the temptation of relativism or of a subjectivist and selective interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Only the whole truth can open us to adherence to Christ, dead and risen for our salvation.

From the Catechism:

816 "The sole Church of Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to extend and rule it. . . . This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him."267

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains:

"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God."268

From Humanae Vitae:

14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)

Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16) Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these. Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general. Consequently, it is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive and so intrinsically wrong.

From Evangelium Vitae:

"Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".5

It is frequently asserted that contraception, if made safe and available to all, is the most effective remedy against abortion. The Catholic Church is then accused of actually promoting abortion, because she obstinately continues to teach the moral unlawfulness of contraception. When looked at carefully, this objection is clearly unfounded. It may be that many people use contraception with a view to excluding the subsequent temptation of abortion. But the negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality"-which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act-are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro- abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected. Certainly, from the moral point of view contraception and abortion arespecifically different evils: the former contradicts the full truth of the sexual act as the proper expression of conjugal love, while the latter destroys the life of a human being; the former is opposed to the virtue of chastity in marriage, the latter is opposed to the virtue of justice and directly violates the divine commandment "You shall not kill".

From Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:

4. Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force.

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

From: The relevance of priestly celibacy today, Congregation for the Clergy

Celibacy is a charism which the Holy Spirit bestows on some in function of a good that redounds to the good of the whole Church. As a charism, celibacy is one of those divine favours which no one can ever dispute, any more than anyone is entitled to dispute the choice made by the Son of God of having an ever virgin Mother and a virgin for his putative father too.

Demanding a total and exclusive love, the Church chooses those who, having received the charism of perfect chastity, freely intend to follow the call to continue the mission of salvation bequeathed to them as their heritage by the divine Spouse...

Hence, ecclesiastical authority will certainly not try to impose a charism on anyone to which he has not been called; but it does have every right to lay its hands exclusively on those who have received the free gift of chastity in the celibate life from the Holy Spirit. The priestly vocation, therefore, is not simply a subjective self-giving on the part of the individual, but requires clear signs of ‘vocability’ which only the bishop is deputed to ascertain and confirm.

From Unam Sanctum:

"...we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Face it, heretics...

It's never gonna happen.

Even post-conciliar documents have you pegged.

Typical liberal "Catholic" Bull-oney

2007-09-09T17:02:00.001-07:00

"It's OK to be protestant. Really. That's what Vatican II, which you despise so much says, you silly traddies - there is more than one path to salvation."

When a self-proclaimed "Catholic" says something like this you know VII needs clarification.

I could refute this heresy on so many levels but I think the error stands for itself.

http://reform-catholic.blogspot.com/2007/07/schismatic-watch-2.html

More PC Double-Standards

2007-09-02T21:56:00.000-07:00

http://www.catholicleague.org/release.php?id=1323

"At least two dozen newspapers refused to run a cartoon last Sunday (the first of a two-part series) because it might offend Muslims; more newspapers are expected to censor the September 2 installment. The cartoon strip that was slated to run on August 26, Berkeley Breathed’s “Opus,” contained a sexually suggestive panel and poked fun at radical Islam. “Opus” is syndicated by the Washington Post Writers Group, which is led by Alan Shearer.

Shearer explained that “Whenever something lands close to the edge, we give editors enough notice” in case they choose to run something else. He checked with Islamic experts to see if the “Opus” strips might be a problem, and even though they said they weren’t, they were nixed anyway. Muslim staffers at the Washington Post were also asked for their input.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue commented as follows:

“The Washington Post, and all the other newspapers which refuse to print these cartoons, are simultaneously sporting their cowardice and bigotry. In 2006, this same newspaper portrayed the Sacred Heart of Jesus with the symbol of the Democratic Party, and it depicted the disgraced Congressman Mark Foley as a candidate for the priesthood at ‘Saint Paedophilia’s.’ In 2004, it displayed a bishop monitoring Catholics in a voting booth, and it showed a habit-wearing nun brandishing a ruler while ‘little Mel Gibson gets beaten to a bloody pulp by Sister Dolores Excruciata of the Little Sisters of the Holy Agony.’ In 2002, it depicted a bishop and two priests as the ‘Axis of Evil,’ and in 2001 it twice mocked the Eucharist. "

The only reason Jihadists commit terrorist acts is becasue they have it in their heads that terrorism works.

Well with the topic of Islam being a possible riot-starting embassy-burning, hot-potato combined with the press' overwhelming political correctness, it seems terrorism gets results.

Already in the UK people are under fire for putting "jihad" and "terrorism" in the same sentence.

But it's still ok to print offensive anti-Catholic editorials and cartoons. Why? Because they know Catholics won't blow you up over it. Deep down they know christianity is a religion of peace and Islam's claim to that phrase is, well, questionable. They see Catholicism as an easy target that won't fight back.

The only reason the papers pander to the jihadists is that jihadists are merely the bigger bully. Bullies are cowards by nature especially the papers in this case. I don't condone any cartoons whose purpose is to be offensive. But if it happens I'm not going to burn something in effigy over it. I'm just tired of the double-standard.

They make it seem they're being the nice guys not wanting to offend anyone. But the truth is since they have zero qualms about printing anti-Catholic cartoons, they just care about protecting their own butts.

Perhaps if the west decides to stand up for itself, ends the pandering, embraces and treasures its Judeo-christian roots, and fights back, the jihadists will know terrorism no longer profits.

Freedom of Speech for All! (Except if you're religious)

2007-08-31T15:36:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,295432,00.html

"DENVER — A student who said she was told she wouldn't get her diploma unless she apologized for a commencement speech in which she mentioned Jesus has filed a lawsuit alleging her free speech rights were violated.

The school district contends its actions were "constitutionally appropriate."

Erica Corder was one of 15 valedictorians at Lewis-Palmer High School in 2006. All were invited to speak for 30 seconds at the graduation ceremony. When it was Corder's turn, she encouraged the audience to get to know Jesus Christ.

Corder had not included those remarks during rehearsals.

Corder's lawsuit, filed Monday in U.S. District Court, said Principal Mark Brewer told her to prepare a public apology or she would not receive her diploma. She was still allowed to graduate.
The lawsuit said Brewer would not give Corder her diploma until she included a sentence saying, "I realize that, had I asked ahead of time, I would not have been allowed to say what I did." Corder received her diploma after complying.

[. . .]

Corder is represented by attorneys affiliated with Liberty Counsel, an Orlando, Fla.-based group that says it is dedicated to advancing religious freedom."

What? You mean the ACLU didn't jusmp at the chance to represent her pro bono when her first ammendment rights were violated like they did for NAMBLA?

Oh yeah, religion doesn't fit with the communist views of the ACLU's founder.

Child rapists good. Jesus Christ bad. Just who do you think they work for?

Father forgive me for I have not recycled

2007-08-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2349163.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797084

The Roman Catholic Church is at hand with a new line in “green confessions” to help eco-sinners to find forgiveness.

Dom Anthony Sutch, the Benedictine monk who resigned as head of Downside School to become a parish priest in Suffolk, will be at the county’s Waveney Greenpeace [That explains it.] festival this weekend to hear eco-confessions in what is thought to be the first dedicated confessional booth of its kind.

Vested in a green chasuble-style garment made from recycled curtains, and in a booth constructed of recycled doors, [Which is different from typical liberal vestments and churches how exactly?] he will hear the sins of of those who have not recycled the things they ought to have done and who have consumed the things they ought not to have done.

He told The Times: “It is not, I hope, blasphemous to do this. I do not think it is. It is just an attempt to make people conscious of the way they live. The Church is aware of green issues and of how aware we have to be of how we treat the environment.

“I’ve had one or two comments about abuse of the confessional. One or two people have said, ‘Father, is this quite right?’

I wonder why...

Hey, I have an idea:

How about they reinforce the need for real confession?

I await the time when the Church will need to define the heresy of Environmental Fundamentalism.

And I thought segregation at Universities ended in the 60's

2007-08-27T05:03:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294633,00.html

BURLINGTON, Vt. — The University of Vermont's big new student center doesn't just have women's bathrooms and men's bathrooms.

It also has gender-neutral bathrooms, a feature added to accommodate transgendered people, as well as those with some disabilities. The four single bathrooms in the new Dudley H. Davis Center — each with a toilet, sink, shower and lockable door — cost about $2,500 a piece to build. Their wall signs identify each as "gender neutral restroom."

"It's about inclusivity and accessibility and the importance of meeting all people's needs, not just a few," said Annie Stevens, assistant vice president for student and campus life.

"A multi-use bathroom doesn't necessarily feel safe to transgendered students, because they have concerns about how their gender would be read by others," said Dot Brauer, director of the school's Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Questioning and Ally Services.

A woman who identifies as a man, for example, may not feel welcome in a women's rest room. Transgendered people have been the target of verbal and physical abuse in rest rooms and been arrested, or suspected of lewd conduct, according to Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality."

Equality?

Perhaps if the people walking into the woman's bathrooms actually looked like women people wouldn't assume they were perverts. How many times have kids been shot by police because they were running around with toy guns that looked real? Same deal.

What's the one slogan shouted the loudest at the white, male, straight, christian, [insert popular "victimizer" demographic here], community?

"WE'RE ALL THE SAME!!" or some other such phrase.

So if we're the same, then why have separate bathrooms for people who want to act like the opposite sex? Also in that article is a desire for separate showers. What's next? Priority on public buses? Separate drinking fountains? Hasn't our culture grown up past these things?

If these people care so much about equality and acceptance then why do they want to be socially segregated, set apart from the rest of us? Here's a hint: before they started acting like fools in their parades, bombarding us with their propaganda, and demanding such segregation, they were the rest of us.

The only people who forcibly set them apart from the community at large anymore are themselves.

Government Sanctioned Murder

2007-08-24T00:15:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,294320,00.html

"PARIS — A 36-year-old woman was taken into police custody in the French Alps after police discovered the bodies of three of her newborn babies hidden at her home, police said Thursday.

Police said they were tipped off by the woman's former romantic partner, who said he discovered the bodies hidden in boxes at the house. In a search Wednesday, officers found the bodies of three newborns, born between 2001 and 2006, and the woman acknowledged that she had given birth to them, police said.

[. . .]

"For the moment, the reasons are not explained," he told France-3 radio. "She said she could not face up to being a mother ... to her children."

The announcement had echoes of another case that shocked France. Last year, two of Frenchwoman Veronique Courjault's newborns were found dead in a freezer at the family residence in Seoul, South Korea, where she and her husband had been living since 2002.

Police said Courjault also told investigators that she killed another child she bore in 1999 in France and burned the body in the fireplace of the home."

Why not just have the French government kill them for you? It's legal and they'll even pay for it. Killing a child after it's born is to them some sort of horror yet at the same time killing a child in utero is a woman's choice. What the difference? Honestly?

Why be in a state of abject horror at one and fiercly protect the 'right' for a woman to have a doctor do the same thing for her?

At least be consistent about your depravity.

My TLM Experience, among other things

2007-08-23T07:00:00.000-07:00

Over at Fr. Z's, he asked his readers, those who did not grow up with the TLM, about their experiences of it. Instead of making a huge entry in his combox, I decided to just make a post here. Plus, I have a bit of writer's block.

I was blissfully ignorant.

Ignorant of what I had missed, being born almost two decades after the council. I didn't think the way the mass was at my church was the way it had been done for centuries, the question just never came up. I had never heard of Vatican II, I was poorly catechized when I was younger, and just recently was my interest in all things Catholic picking up speed. But let's move back a few years.

I had dated a girl a couple years previous who was a non-denominational christian, her parents were apostates from Catholicism. Her parents were very kind, and the topic of religion honestly never came up. I had stopped attending church due to a rebellious streak, but even poorly catechized I still had a Catholic upbringing. I decided to seek out on my own for what truth was, although my parents had already given it to me. I'm rather skeptical by nature, so I needed to prove it to myself, not just take another's word for it.

I never really had a spiritual "moment" per se, but there was a hunger growing in me, a hunger for the anceint, a yearning to be connected with something much older, wiser, metaphysical. I started studying philosophy, and then eastern thought. I had a bit of contact with new age but that stuff emediately turned me off.

I then began studying apocryphal writings, foolishly thinking perhaps when the bible was put together something might have been left out. (I was poorly catechised, remember.) Gnosticism was interesting, but didn't quite make much sense. Kabbalism seemed interesting too but didn't really click with me.

Well with no real starting point I decided to begin with what mostly everyone else thought was good spiritual stuff; the Bible. I went to Wal-Mart and picked myself up a KJV for $4.97. (I thought all bibles were the same, plus it was a rollback :P) I had started reading it off and on starting with the New Testament. I remember thinking to myself, "Hey, that's what we say in church! And that too!" I was drawn, but not completely hooked in yet.

Then the obvious question came to mind,"Where did the bible come from?" Well, since my girfriend and her family were "bible-heavy" I thought I'd just ask them. Well, they didn't know. My mother noticed I had bougght a KJV and said,"Y'know, that's a protestant bible." I replied,"Huh? what's the difference?" Then she told me it was missing books. I thought to myself,"No way!"

Then I remembered that my grandmother had bought me an NAB with my name on it for my confirmation. I went into the rummage pile that passed as my bedroom to begin the Quest For The NAB. Peril, adventure, defeat and glorious victory awaited me within. Seriously, it's easier to find green men on Mars than anything in that bedroom. (Hence why I opted just to pay $4.97 for a new bible) This was a quest that'd make tossing a little ring into a volcanoe look like patty-cake.

Well, after much blood, sweat, and tears I found it. I quickly compared both tables of contents and the oracle's prophecy (my mom's statement) was true! (Ok, i'm done with the geeky RPG references, I promise)

Well, what to do now? The next obvious step was to find out why.

Before I could get into the thick of my detective work I had started college, taking music performance as my major. (If you like free time and friends and having a job, don't do it.) My relationship with the non-denom girl after two years ended badly, the one that followed ended not much better.

A year or so went by and I met another girl, a good Catholic girl. (All this has a point to it, really.) Her mom did a lot of work at the local parish and had a large Catholic book collection. She also had stacks and stacks of articles printed off http://www.newadvent.org/. I had found my starting place. My search for the bible's origins would now begin in earnest.

Not long after I had learned the truth behind how the canon came to be. It was a Catholic book! I then shelfed the KJV and stuck to the NAB. (Poorly catechized!) I had now found myself at an impasse. If I accept the bible as the word of God, then I do so on the Catholic Church's word. If I do that, then I must also accept everything else it teaches. It was all or nothing. I had never heard of cafeteria-Catholics but the thought of picking and choosing what I liked was blantantly intellectually dishonest. Either I accepted Catholicism or I rejected all of Christendom.

Well, God summoned up a strong breeze and nudged me off the Catholic side of the cliff. Newadvent became my new best friend. I became a sponge, wanting anything I could get my hands on. I was neck deep in Church history and loving every minute. That hunger for the ancient was beginning to be sated. I loved the strength of the decrees of Rome, it was muscular, and in way, manly. I had no father growing up so finding examples of manliness was trying, and when found I latched onto them. I admired the strength and fortitude of the ancient and medieval Church.

(Incendently, this was when I became involved with Catholic message boards, particularly in apologetics. Never before was I more embarassed with my poor catechesis, which soon changed.) Which brings us to the present in my fair tale.

In college, an entire year was dedicated to studying four-part choral harmony. We'd write out a few bars using the rules Back had developed and then it came time at the end of class to see if ti worked. The professor would dedicate one side of the room to soprano, another to alto, and the same for tenor and bass. And then we sang. Granted, not everyone in the class was a vocal major, but we managed to hold a pitch. It sounded amazing to me. I'm a doublebass player by trade, so I had zero experience with choirs. This was trully the music of angels.

I had studied a bit of palestrina, and after I had heard Bach's mass in B minor I was sold: I wanted to write a mass. All of the CD"s I checked out fo the library had beautiful selections of Palestrina, but they were all like "Best Hits" and not a mass form beginning to end.

I asked my girlfriend's mom if she had a copy of the mass in latin. (Yeah, I kinda grew up knowing latin was a "church thing" but never knew why since I never heard latin in mass. Go figure.) She handed me a Marian missal, which to my surprise had both latin and english in it. (I had never owned a missal before.)

After some flipping of pages I finally found the order of the mass. I began reading. Wait a second... This isn't the same... This isn't the same at all... What mass is this?

Rather stupefied I put my project on hold and scrmbled to find out why the mass in this book is co different from the mass I grew up with. I asked my girlfriend's mom, she said the mass was changed at Vatican II. I remember seeing two large blue books with that name on her bookshelf. I pulled them down and started searching through them.

I found Sacrosanctum Concilium and began reading. So far so good. Then I got to that one part. Yes that one.

"Particular law remaining on force; the use of latin is to be preserved in the latin rites."

Huh? The mass I go to doesn't have any latin. Then another body blow:

"The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services."

Chant? I thought that was something only monks did on those CD's. I never knew it was supposed to be in mass.

"In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things."

Pipe organ? We had one years ago, when I was little, but not anymore.

After a bit more research I found that the old mass, the one in that marian missal, had been replaced by a new mass. One that in practice not only didn't resemble the old, but didn't even follow what was written in Vatican II. Where was the latin? Where was the chant? Where was the organ?

One of the main reasons I became so disenchanted with church in the first place was that it was so damn cheesy. And now I knew what had happened, and how it got that way. That the mass used to be in all latin with chant and incense, and all the pomp and ceremony. But now it was gone.

My heart sank.

If I may be honest, I felt cheated. I really did.

I had finally found the ancient, a connection with history, with something old and transcendent, metaphysical. And now it was mere dust; after being in use for centuries I missed my opportunity by a mere decade and a half.

I was angry; angry at the Church. Then it dawned on me that I was being selfish. Selfish and arrogant. That I somehow could take the Church to task and point out how wrong it was that it wsan't even following its own documents. That somehow I knew better.

If God trully guides the Catholic Church like I believed it did, then for some reason, beyond my understanding, God willed or at least allowed it to be like this. This episode taught me a good lesson: surrender.

I had always relied on reason and logic to back up my reason to believe, especially in my budding love for apologetics. (Something I feel I'm good at, logic and reason, due to my mother.) If there was something I didn't understand, I researched it until I did. There was always a reasonable answer for everything. Well, this was something I couldn't reason my way out of. Sure, people were obviously abusing Vatican II, but why didn't anyone stand up? Why was God allowing it to happen? I couldn't find an answer. So instead of relying on my merely human intellect I resigned the fight to God. Instead of trying to plow my way through a mountain I'd let God gently lift me over it.

And let me tell you, such resignation I was not used to. As any other family, especially one with me being the only male and in adolescence, we had our fair share of arguments. I must admit, I got good at arguing. Submitting and backing down weren't even in my vocabulary. It was like teaching a shark how to sing.

Well, this shark sang.

Shortly after this time my girlfriend's mother told me that at a church not very far away they offer the old mass. Not knowing enought to put two and two togther at the time, I had known that we had gotten a new bishop after our old one had casued a bit of scandal, but I knew nothing about how our old bishop forbade the old mass from being celebrated, and I had the new one to thank now for having it.

I was elated!

Finally, I could experience the Mass of Ages, I could experience that connection to the ancient. My Lord had heard my cries. My prayers were answered. Perhaps I should try that surrender thing more often...

But I wasn't about to hop into it blindly. I had my missal. I had my directions. Then I heard you dress a little differently for this mass. So I called up the parish office and inquierd about the dress code. I jotted it down and went to the mall, and got myself some nice duds. (Which my mother, just happy to see her only child so excited about church again, kindly bought for me.)

The very next sunday I went to the church that offered the old mass. I walked in, blessed myself, genuflected, and found a seat. The church was surprisingly packed. Mantillas everywhere. Skirts and slacks and dress-shirts, and none of those vile bright0green rubber gardening clogs! Then a familiar scent that I remembered from long ago wafted near me. It was incense. I remembered the scent from when I was an altar server and we used it so rarely. Little did I know my very first TLM just happened to be a high mass.

The chant was amazing, the structure of the movements, the preciseness, and above all the solemnity! This was the definition of ceremony; the apogee of worship! It felt old, yet it was new. My hunger was abated; this was the connection I was looking for. And it was more fulfilling than I could ever have imagined. I thought to myself, "After experiencing this, how could anyone ever doubt Jesus Christ is trully present here?"

I could do something here I couldn't really do before in mass; pray.

I never realized how much of the mass in practice had become a show. I went through the movements, recited the prayers, mostly on robotic reflex. My spirit wasn't in it, I was merely on autopilot.

But what should I pray? Then I remembered seeing in the front of the missal, the words of St. Pius X, "Pray the mass."

Then I realized that the missal wasn't just a program, but a prayerbook. A book of the most holy prayers dedicated to the mystery of our faith, the summit of our belief. This wasn't just a script for the priest, but a prayer all of us say in worship to God.

As I read through, I was touched by the absolute humility and humbleness of the prayers. The Judica Me, the prayer before the Gospel, the prayer at the offering of the bread and wine, all expose the infinite gulf between the greatness of God and his most beloved creation, man. I was especially touched by the words, "holy and venerable hands." That phrase so small, carried such a powerful meaning behind it. Knowing that the priest acts in persona Christi, the sacredness of his office became apparent.

I found out that you didn't have to be doing anything or saying anything to be a part of the mass, that offering up our sacrifices doesn't require gestures or scripted replies. It all must first come from within. I could just read along and pray the mass like Pius X said I should. No one else needs to see me do it for it to be true. God knows.

I was breathless, and almost in tears it was so beautiful. I never looked back after that. I guess if I had to pick a "spiritual moment" everyone talks about that would be it.

Part of that is why I named this blog what it is. After I learned of the many abuses of the new mass, including that of the "people's altar" I decided to stick up for Altare Dei, the altar of God. Not the altar of the people.

After that experience, I became enthralled with everything traditional. I quickly learned the current situation with the indult, and that of the SSPX. And that like before our new bishop, there were many dioceses whose bishop refused permission to offer this mass. I was sad for them, and a little angry. Why would anyone want to refuse this to the people? I thought well, perhaps if God wills it, he will find a way.

Enter Summorum Pontificum.

I thought to myself, "Wow, I'm on a roll." First a desire to experience this mass when I thought it was too late, poof there's a TLM in town. How neat I think it would be if the TLM was more widespread and granted more freedom, poof out comes the Motu Proprio. Then when I didn't think it could get any better, poof a muscular document from the CDF saying the Catholic Church is the one true Church, in the strong language of old.

And as if that wasn't good enough, poof it comes out that the pope celebrates to old mass in private and it's rumored the pope will publicly celebrate the old mass.

I'm on cloud nine!

Then, as I mentioned in a couple earlier posts, someone on CAF had said that we wouldn't be seeing a TLM on EWTN because the bishop there had made it so only Pauline masses facing the people could be televised. "Maybe when the get a new bishop" I thought.

Poof, they get a new bishop.

I thought then, "Hmm maybe now they'll have a TLM, but I dunno..."

Poof, there's a TLM scheduled on EWTN on Sept. 14th.

Now I don't consider myself a righteous man, God knows I need a lot of improvement. But for some reason my prayers availeth much! Of course there's many, many people who are praying for the very same things as I do. Indeed, the Lord hears the cries of His people.

Anyways, if you've made it through my tirade without waking up a couple times in between, you have a gold star in my book. Thanks for reading and God bless you all, and God bless Pope Benedict XVI.

Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.

Follow up to TLM on EWTN with new Bishop

2007-08-17T23:48:00.000-07:00

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/08/traditional-latin-mass-live-on-ewtn.html

In accordance with the prophecy, EWTN will televise the extraordinary form of the mass on September 14, 2007 at 8:00AM EST, the very day Summorum Pontificum goes into effect. EWTN has sought the assistance of the local FSSP in Denton, Nebraska for this celebration. Quite a celebration it will be. It may not seem like much, but the Mass of Ages getting airplay on such an influential station will be monumental.

God bless his holiness, Pope Benedict XVI and his emminence, Bishop Robert Baker.

"Four legs good. Two legs bad."--Animal Farm

2007-08-16T14:20:00.000-07:00

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293397,00.html

"Animal Rights Group Condemns Hamas TV Children's Program for Displaying Animal Abuse

JERUSALEM — An animal rights group on Wednesday criticized a program on a Hamas-run television station in which a man swings cats by their tails and throws stones at lions in a zoo to teach children not to abuse animals.

[. . .]

The sketch drew PETA's attention after it was picked up by Palestinian Media Watch, an Israeli watchdog group that monitors Palestinian media outlets for bias against Israel, and posted on YouTube."

This is the same TV show that featured "Farfour" the mouse that exhorted children to blow themselves up and kill as many jews as they could. Well after Farfour "martyred" himself in the name of Allah a giant bee came in to replace him. Did I mention the guys who founded HAMAS are the same who founded CAIR?

It's nice PETA has a problem with the show promoting animal abuse.

Too bad they have no problem with the show promoting human abuse...

Just when you thought you'd never see a TLM on EWTN...

2007-08-14T15:55:00.000-07:00

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-bishop-in-ewtnland.html

Over on CAF, shortly after the release of Summorum Pontificum, some posters brought up the obvious question of if we'll see a TLM on EWTN.

After a little research, a poster noted that the current bishop of Burmingham had made it so that every televised mass must be in the ordinary form and in ad populi posture. I thought to myself, "Well, maybe when they get a new bishop..."

They just did.

Bishop Robert Baker, former Bishop of Charleston, will be Burmingham's new Bishop. Burmingham's former Bishop has been transferred curiously to a diocese with a smaller Catholic population.

Bishop Baker, interesingly enough, also takes a very recepetive approach to Summorum Pontificum:

In a letter to priests of the Diocese of Charleston, SC, Bishop Robert J Baker takes a warm and positive position. Among the many good things he says are the following, "Let us use this time of reflection on the rich liturgical heritage of the Catholic Church to renew our commitment as priests, deacons, Religous, and lay faithful to ensure that our parish liturgies are celebrated well, whether in the 'ordinary form' or the 'extraordinary form' of the Roman Missal." Bishop Baker also addresses the issue of training and knowledge of Latin in a much more genuinely supportive way than do several other Bishops of recent note. "I would further request that any priest who may wish to celebrate Holy Mass according to the Missal of 1962 be certain that he has mastered the rubrics of the ancient Roman Missal and has a suitable grasp of the Latin language." He goes on to note that there are priests who have "graciously agreed to train others in the proper manner in which the traditional Mass is celebrated".

Pope Benedict XVI obviously knows the influence of EWTN, as well as the benefits of having the Extraordinary Form televised so the world can see what it really is like. Perhaps this is his way of allowing EWTN, if they desire, to televise the Mass of Ages.

New Pope in Gaylord, Michigan.

2007-08-11T18:08:00.000-07:00

From thrownback.blogspot.com I heard of this bishop, Patrick Cooney, who, well, I'll just let him do the explaining:

Until other law is promulgated, all liturgies in the Diocese of Gaylord are to be celebrated entirely in English by the presiding celebrant.

The use of other languages in songs and hymns...can be used occasionally, but must never overshadow the use of English.

Any variance from this policy must be requested on an individual basis from the Bishop of the Diocese of Gaylord using the form that can be obtained from the Secretariat for Worship & Liturgical Formation or the Office of the Bishop.

This statement was released in late June, before the release of Summorum Pontificum.

Obviously a bishop has no right to make such restrictions, as Latin is the norm for the celebration of the liturgy, even if it's not the practical norm. It is the vernacular that is the exception, not the rule. Not even he can change that. It is a gross overstepping of his authority.

But hey, who needs to worry about that when you're busy pontificating from the Holy See of Gaylord?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

New Extraordinary Form Resource Site

2007-08-06T09:47:00.000-07:00

http://www.sanctamissa.org/

This site is still in progress, but when dinished it will serve to be a complete online resource on the TLM.

At the moment, you can watch videos in their online tutorial section, as well as view the rubrics of the mass. You can even download the entire Missale Romanum in PDF format. In light of Summoroum Pontificum, priests who desire to say the old mass but do not know the structure, will find here a great resource to assist them in celebrating mass according to the 1962 missal.

This is trully a treasure, go and check it out!

Thomas More Society panders to heresy

2007-08-02T20:47:00.000-07:00

I found this outrage over at Lair of the Catholic Cavemen (blogrolled on the right column) to which the erudite troglodytes give a very fair treatment.

But this just ticked me off enough to speak as well on it. :)

An excerpt from a letter to their members regarding a luncheon:

"DEAR THOMAS MORE SOCIETY MEMBERS:

The next monthly Mass and lunch meeting of the Thomas More Society is Friday, August 3, 2007 at 12:00 noon at the Westgate Hotel, located at 1055 Second Avenue, San Diego. The price for lunch is $25.00 (ouch) (please RSVP). Our guest speaker will be Jane Via. Jane is the co-founder of an independant congregation, the Mary Magdalene Apostle Catholic Community, which she serves as priest."

Then not only does the letter even plug this heretical group's website, it goes so far as to do a little damage control, knowing what they're doing is wrong:

"We are mindful that Jane's addressing outr group may be viewed as controversial by some of us. Please remember that out Society does notm by inviting speakers to address us, endorse the content of any soeaker's remarks."

If this is a Catholic group, then why bother having such speakers? a little more from the letter:

"Our mission statement voices our dedication to promoting the social, intellectual, and spiritual welfare of our members."

How does having a heretical speaker espousing her heretical views promote their members' spiritual well-being?

They're probably just taking a page out of Mahony's book with his orgies of dissent, aka Religious Education Conferences.

Y'know, his emminence Archbishop Burke resigned his seat on a Catholic Children's charity after the charity decided to have the infanticide / single-T.P.-square-to-save-the-planet activist Cheryle Crow perform for the charity, not wanting to associate with and lend passive support for the abortionist, due to his rock-solid stance as a Catholic against abortion.

Too bad the Sand Diego Thomas More Society lacks such fortitude and orthodox views. Even asking Via to speak is telling, even though they say they don't necessarily support it. Right. If the true gospel is so important to you, why lend an ear to a false one?

The Caveman's words:
http://catholic-caveman.blogspot.com/2007/08/blog-post.html

Regensburg II

2007-07-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

The pope's personal secretary shows that he too has a pair and isn't affraid to point out the elephant in the room:

Pope Benedict's personal secretary, Msgr Georg Gaenswein, says that attempts to spread Islam in the West are undeniable and that the Catholic Church sees the "threat to Europe's identity" and is not afraid to say to say so.

The Economic Times reports that Msgr Gaenswein warned against the spread of Islam in the West in an interview with a German newspaper published on Friday.

"We cannot deny the attempts to spread Islam in the West. And we should not be too understanding and let this blind us to the threat to Europe's identity," he told the weekly magazine of the Sueddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.

"The danger for the identity of Europe that is connected with it should not be ignored out of a wrongly understood respectfulness," the magazine quoted him as saying.

Gaenswein described as "prophetic" the highly controversial speech the pope made at the University of Regensburg when he visited Germany last September in which he seemed to link Islam to violence.

"The speech was precisely meant to counter a kind of naivete. It is clear that there is not only one Islam and the pope does not know anybody who speaks with binding authority to all Muslims," he said.

"The concept groups many different schools ... some of whom use the Koran to justify reaching for a gun," he said.

In the speech at the University of Regensburg in his native Germany, Pope Benedict quoted a medieval Christian emperor who criticised some teachings of the Prophet Mohammed as "evil and inhuman".

The lecture sparked days of sometimes violent protests in Muslim countries, prompting the pontiff to say that he was "deeply sorry" for any offence and to attribute Muslim anger to an "unfortunate misunderstanding".

But he stopped short of apologising for the remarks.

God bless Msgr. Gaenswein and God bless Benedict XVI.

If anyone is interested in this particular topic of Europe losing its identity to Islam and again with secularism, I highly recommend the book "Without Roots: The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam: co-authored by Benedict XVI and Marcello Pera.

http://www.cathnews.com/news/707/163.php

My local Catholic newspaper on Summorum Pontificum

2007-07-18T21:43:00.000-07:00

http://www.catholicsun.org/2007/july19/local/latinmass.html

I've been waiting for the latest issue to come out so I could see how they would treat the Motu Proprio. The whole article is actually pretty long and goes into detail, but I'll just quote a small portion. I was actually pleasantly surprised:

"The extraordinary form of the mass differs from the ordinary form in a number of ways." (notice the use of the term "extraordinary" and "ordinary" as opposed to more perjorative terms)

"The priest celebrating the extraordinary form faces the same direction as the congregration and prays the mass in latin." (YAY! the reporter didn't try to spin it by saying "with his back to the people" and didn't refer to latin as a "dead language no one understands")

"While the ordinary form of the mass does not prohibit either this posture or the usw of Latin for all or parts of the Mass, in practice, the great mystery is celebrated in the local vernacular with the priest facing the congregation." (I found this a nice comment showing that such a practice isn't completely alien to the ordinary form, contrary to popular belief.)

"Also, much more of the extraordinary form of the mass is prayed in a low voice, including the entire canon." (Again, notice the missing spin as others against the MP would say "mumble")

"The silence, ritual and prayer can lend a more transcendant nature to the Mass and and attracts Catholics of all ages, said Fr, Kenneth Fryer, FSSP, pastoral administer for Mater Misericordiae Mission, which celebrates the extraordinary form of the mass at St. Thomas the Apostle Parish." (Who is a very pious and kind man, btw. When I go up for communion I always notice beads of sweat on his face--this guy's putting everything he has into this mass. That's dedication.)

"The extraordinary form 'expresses itself perhaps in a more sublime way,' he said, explaining why younger peole who never grew up with the 1962 missal are attracted to it." (Again, a comment that the mass is seeing a lot of youth participation, and not just for nostalgic old people.)

Interestingly enough, nowhere does the article bring up the SSPX like so many others do, as an attempt to spin the Holy Father's decision as mere pandering to "radtrads".

The article also provided a small quote from our Bishop about the MP:

"Bishop Thomas J, Olmsted said that this document reflects the Holy Father's desire to 'strengthen the Church's Liturgical life.'

" 'It reflects his long-standing love of the Sacred Liturgy and his profound understanding of the history and theology of the eucharistice sacrifice,' the bishop said.

" 'It also shows his deep appreciation of the 2,000 year tradition of the Holy Mass, and especially of the way that this tradition grows organically over the centuries,' he added."

He gets it.

I only with every other bishop in the west felt the same way. I feel very blessed for our new bishop, and my heart goes out to those whose bishops limit or forbid them from experiencing the extraordinary form that I have such wide access to.

God bless bishop Olmsted and God bless the Holy Father.

Funny Church Bulletin Announcements

2007-07-14T17:27:00.000-07:00

here's a few kneeslappers (That's what us old farts call "jokes")

"• For those of you who have children and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs."

"• This afternoon there will be a meeting in the south and north ends of the church. Children will be baptized at both ends."

"• This being Easter Sunday, we will ask Mrs. Lewis to come forward and lay an egg on the altar."

Read the rest over at Salve Regina:
http://paramedicgoldengirl.blogspot.com/2007/07/funny-church-bulletin-announcements.html

Today's Special Remembrance

2007-07-14T17:07:00.000-07:00

Today the Church honors St. Camillus of Lellis

"Son of a military officer who had served both for Naples and France. His mother died when he was very young. Spent his youth as a soldier, fighting for the Venetians against the Turks, and then for Naples. Reported as a large individual, perhaps as tall as 6'6", and powerfully built, but suffered all his life from abscesses on his feet. A gambling addict, he lost so much he had to take a job working construction on a building belonging to the Capuchins; they converted him.

He entered the Capuchin noviate three times, but a nagging leg injury, received while fighting the Turks, each time forced him to give up. He went to Rome for medical treatment where Saint Philip Neri became his priest and confessor. He moved into San Giacomo Hospital for the incurable, and eventually became its administrator. Lacking education, he began to study with children when he was 32 years old. Priest. Founded the Congregation of the Servants of the Sick (the Camellians) who, naturally, care for the sick both in hospital and home. The order expanded with houses in several countries. Camillus honored the sick as living images of Christ, and hoped that the service he gave them did penance for his wayward youth. Reported to have the gifts of miraculous healing and prophecy."

Born: Naples, Italy 1550, Died: Genoa, Italy 1614

Source:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/saintc09.htm

St. Camilus, ora pro nobis

Summorum Pontificum on EWTN

2007-07-14T16:35:00.000-07:00

"The World Over", a news program hosted by Raymond Arroyo on EWTN, recently covered Summorum Pontificum in fair detail. In case you missed the original showing and the encore, you can download the episode as an mp3 from their podcast section.

Podcasts last for about a week, I think, until they're updated. So if you want it, get it now.
http://www.ewtn.com/podcast/index.asp

Anti-Catholicism at CNN

2007-07-14T02:08:00.000-07:00

This just pissed me off enough to write about it. Special thanks to http://www.jimmyakin.org/ for bringing this to light.

Roland S. Martin decided to write an editorial about the latest document released by the CDF. Here we go:

"(CNN) -- Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention."

As the spiritual leader of the largest christian faith on earth, and given his lack of public appearances in contrast to JPII, I doubt he has a hard time getting, or desires, more attention. That's quite a juvenile argument.

"For him to even suggest that only the Catholic Church can provide true salvation to believers in Christ shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life."

And it seems you, sir, are wholly ignorant concering from whence those scriptures came. The Catholic Church was nearly 400 years old by the time the bible was put together. This argument is also a strawman, as the document states other christian faiths can provide some truth to its followers which can lead to the full truth. There is no such thing as "true" salvation" as there is no such thing as "fake" salvation. It either is or isn't.

"Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Catholic."

So for those first 25 years you never knew the scriptures? Well whose fault is that? Did you expect the Holy Father himself to yank you off your lazy bum and shove a bible in your face? What the hell were you doing when three readings as well as pslams were read every week at mass? Don't try to pin your own laziness on the Church.

You seem to hold to this "either-or" mentality that you're either a card-carrying Catholic or you're well-read in the scriptures. Why not both? oh, because that would make your own scriptural illiteracy your own fault and not the Church's.

"That's right, I was born and raised in the Catholic Church. One of the first meetings to build the church I was raised in -- Our Lady Star of the Sea in Houston -- took place in my grandparents' living room. Many of my Saturdays and Sundays were spent serving as an altar boy, Catholic Youth Organization leader, dedicated student of Catechism, and constantly reciting the Holy Rosary."

Is that a bad thing? If you were an altar boy then you must have heard all of the scripture readins during mass. No? then how about when you were a "dedicated student of the Catechism"? There's plenty of scripture in there. No? What about the rosary, those prayers are scriptural. Still no dice? Wow, you're either a lazy ignoramous or a lazy liar.

"And the reality is that we were never really encouraged to study the Scriptures. The standard practice was for all of us to read the same pamphlets passed out by the church, recite the readings from the New and Old Testaments, listen to the Scripture chosen for us in the Gospel and hear a normally bland homily."

Last I checked, readings from the Old and New testaments as well as the gospel count as reading scripture... Unlike most denominations, there's more to Catholicism than scripture alone.

However, the Church grants a partial indulgence for reading scripture, a plenary indulgence of this reading is at least for a half hour.

Also, we as Catholics are exhorted not only by St. Jerome (the first transcriber of the Bible) to read scripture, but by Pope Leo XIII in Providentissiumus Deus, Benedict XV in Spiritus Paraclitus, and Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu. But I guess that's just more old men trying to get attention, right?

"That isn't always the case at some Catholic churches. If you visit St. Sabina in Chicago, Father Michael Pfleger will surely have your soul jumping with his strong sermons and willingness to engage the community to get involved in direct action."

Ah, yes. The obligatory "display the other side of the argument". Too bad this is the only time you'll do so.

"Yet as I reflect on my years as a Catholic, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ."

Yes, YOU definitely wasted your time, not the Church. You didn't even pay attention. Jesus Christ was with you, mere feet away from that altar boy so many years ago. But God knows what took precedence over Him, as you don't even remember scripture readings in mass.

"And that's why Pope Benedict XVI is meaningless, along with his decision to re-state the primacy of the Catholic Church. This week, the pope released a document correcting interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which some say modernized the church. But for hardliners like Pope Benedict XVI, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations."

But not far enough for liberals like you, right? After Benedict XVI and you die, we'll see who's more meaningless. Only the Catholic Church makes its claim of primacy and only the Catholic Church can back it up. And it drives people like you nuts. The gall of some people...

What about "feed my lambs" "feed my sheep" "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church" "I give to you the keys of heaven and earth" power to bind and loose, etc. Yeah, you're right. He's meaningless.

"But what ticked folks off was his assertion in the 16-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the only denominations that can call themselves true churches are ones that can trace their roots back to Jesus Christ's original apostles. He even suggested they suffer from defects"

Well you should know now that since you're no longer under the tyranny of Rome that scripture stresses the importance of fidelity to doctrine, and unity of doctrine; doctrine that is to be preserved by the successors of the apostles, just as Paul teaches:

2Ti 2:2 "And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also."

This shows four generations of teachers: first Paul, second Timothy, third the men Timothy teaches, and fourth, of those they teach. Fidelity to the successors of the apostles is fidelity to the truth the apostles taught.

Unity in doctrine:

Acts 4:32 "And the multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul: neither did any one say that aught of the things which he possessed, was his own; but all things were common unto them. "

1Cor 1:10 "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. "

Eph 4:3-5 "Careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

Eph 4:14-15 "That henceforth we be no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine by the wickedness of men, by cunning craftiness, by which they lie in wait to deceive. But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ:"

1Ti 1:3 "As I desired thee to remain at Ephesus when I went into Macedonia, that thou mightest charge some not to teach otherwise,"

1Ti 4:1 "Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils,"

1:9 "Embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, that he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers."

2Pet 3:16-17 "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness."

Aww crap, a Catholic who knows scripture... whooda thunk?

But who needs all that when you have mass to ignore?! Moving on:

"This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission."

But what, pray tell, what the pillar and bulwark of the truth (1Ti 3:15) as well as the mediator in disputes? (Mat 18:17) Not the bible, but the Church. And that Church must have been of some importance considering Paul in Eph 4 and Eph 5 describes the Church as the Body of Christ. So Jesus Christ is the head of the Catholic Church. It's not the Church that own Jesus as it is the Church that is the unspotted bride of Christ.

If you can prove yours or any other Church was around during apostolic times and therefore the term "church" refers directly to you, i'll convert on the spot. If not, then kindly shut your mouth.

"The Bible records in Matthew 28:16 that Jesus called his 11 disciples (the other, Judas, hanged himself after betraying Jesus) to Mount Galilee and decreed, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (New International Version)."

Exactly. But who was He addressing in that quote? Does that apply to all of us? Or does that apply to the apostles first and us second? Streesing unity in doctrine and the primacy of Catholicism follows directly with the great commission, as Jesus told his apostles to spread the truth. Given the many thousands of protestant denominations, the truth got lost somewhere.

Jesus sure stressed to Peter about feeding his sheep and lambs and the whole deal with the keys of heaven and earth and building the Church upon the Petra and all... He sent the Church to teach the world, not men with books.

"It doesn't matter what Pope Benedict XVI has to say, or for that matter, any other religious leader. A Christian believes in Jesus Christ and what He had to say, not what a man of God has to say. This is not an attempt to completely dismiss religious leaders, but is further evidence of what happens when ego is more important than the work of Christ."

Prove to us that this is ego. Perhaps it is your ego that is bruised because you know your denomination can't be the first and only Catholics can back up that claim?

Since Christ has acended, who do we listen to? You?

But wait, Christ said he'd be with the apostles to the end of teh age, so we should listen to them right? Oh, but wait, they're dead too...

Hold on, didn't they name successors? I mean, they did it for Judas, why not the rest? Do you think Jesus would remain with their successors since obviously the apostles didn't live until the end of the age? What's the only Church that can trace their lineage back to the apostles? Hmm...

"John 14:6 says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Nowhere does it say that Peter, Pope Benedict XVI or anyone else can supplant Jesus as the leader of the church."

Strawman.

Show us where we said Peter or the Pope is the leader of the Church and Jesus Christ is not. You won't because you can't.

"It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide."

Coming from the theological progeny of Martin Luther, that's quite a bold statement. Benedict is preaching unity in doctrine, yet you seem to imply that only serves to divide. How can dissonance in doctrine unify, exactly?

"Protestant leaders: Don't buy into the foolishness. Let Pope Benedict XVI keep running off at the mouth and making pointless declarations. If you keep bringing good news to the poor, setting the captives free and assisting those who seek to know Jesus, then you'll make more headway in doing the work of Jesus than any 16-page document will."

Oh yeah, and always remember: Christianity started in the 16th century, and Jesus founded a book. And it doesn't matter what exactly you believe, doctrinal "diversity" unifies whereas doctrinal unity divides. Four legs bad, two legs better. And for a protestant, you sure talk about works a lot.

And one last thing, don't forget the whole source of your identity as protestants is the Catholic Church, whom all protestants protest against. It must be something to have your entire spiritual identity summed up in the word "nay-sayer". Protestantism proves the Catholic Church's legitimacy; the Church was obviously around first, else protestants would have nothing to protest.

And I almost forgot why I never watched CNN.

Nah, I lied, I've always remembered. :P

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/13/martin/index.html

Mahony and the Latin Mass

2007-07-13T12:28:00.000-07:00

I bet all of you are wondering what exactly Cardinal Roger Mahony is thinking in the wake of Summorum Pontificum.

Well, one thing's for sure; The silence is defening.

In a recent statement in the L.A. Times online, Tod Tamberg, spokesman for the L.A. Archdiocese said,"The appeal of a Mass only in Latin is quite limited," The article went on to say that the archdiocese estimates about 650 people attend the TLM each month.

Now this can be very misleading. And here's why:

A quick look on the L.A. archdiocese website shows the venues and times of the TLM's offered in the diocese. Out of five venues, only one offers the TLM every sunday. The other four alternate once-per-month services. Three of those four are a chapel in a hospital, a house for the Little Sisters of the Poor, and a chapel at a university. All five venues are not close to one another. So unless you feel like driving all over and not being able to enjoy a stable parish life, you're only gonna get a Latin mass once per month.

It's not the appeal of the Latin mass that's quite limited, it's the availability! More people would go if there were more than eight TLM's per month dispersed across the entire diocese.

Here in the Phoenix diocese we have three venues that offer the TLM, two of those have daily TLM's, with the third having them weekly. Bishop Olmstead has elevated the TLM community to mission status (named "Mater Misericordiae") with the future goal of making it an official parish (This is all listed on the website)

Here in Phoenix we have 64 TLM's per month compared to LA's 8. It's more than obvious that Mahony only bothers to have a Latin mass at all just so he can say he offers it.

On a realted note, also on the LA archdiocese website's indult page there's this quote,"Only the celebrations listed here are licit and authorized by the Archbishop. The Tridentine Mass is also offered elsewhere in the region by groups that call themselves Catholic but which are not in communion with the Holy See."

This is an obvious stab at the SSPX. How dare Mahony call the SSPX non-Catholic given the antics at his orgy of heresy AKA "Religious Education" Conferences. The only religion anyone learns there certainly isn't Catholicism.

No one can point out anything the SSPX teaches that is heretical, yet anyone with eyes can point out several things at Mahony's dissent-fest that's blatently heretical. But perhaps he's right; according to his version of Catholicism, tradition is, in fact, heresy.

He'd better be careful which standards of orthodoxy he holds others to when casting stones from his glass throne. But that's ok. God shall judge him on his orthodoxy, just as he judges others on theirs.

Tambert's statement:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-latin8jul08,1,160197.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=1&cset=true

LA archdiocese indult info:
http://www.la-archdiocese.org/directories/parishes/indult.html

Someone to keep in mind on Friday

2007-07-12T19:37:00.001-07:00

Friday is the feast day of St. Henry. He became Duke of Bavaria in 995 and was crowned king of Germany in 1002, and of Pavia in 1004. He was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 1014 by Pope Benedict VIII, of the Emperors he was the last of the saxon dynasty. He married St. Cunegunda but never had children. He defeated a rebellion led by his brother but they later reconciled. Henry "Founded schools, quelled rebellions, protected the frontiers, worked to establish a stable peace in Europe, and to reform the Church while respecting its independence. Fostered missions, and established Bamberg as a center for missions to Slavic countries. Started the construction of the cathedral at Basel, Switzerland; it took nearly 400 years to complete. Both Henry and Saint Cunegunda were prayerful people, and generous to the poor."

Memories of great people are often lost to time, having been forgotten, faded into legend, or ursurped by the "me and now" social ethos. While great saints did not do great things that they should be remembered, being remembered is how we honor their greatness. These people led by example of christian charity. Henry in particular was given much and gave much to serve his people. So when a feast day rolls around, be sure to read and meditate on their life; They achieved and lost much for their faith, so it's the least we can do. Let Henry's and other saints' memories never fall into obscurity, that we may learn from and honor them as examples of true Sons of God.

St. Henry, ora pro nobis.

Picture, quote, and paraphrase from:
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/sainth14.htm

New CDF document clears up "subsisit"

2007-07-10T06:59:00.001-07:00

"Subsisit" in Lumen Gentium has continuously been a popular loophole for liberal Catholics who use it as a way to justify their beliefe that the Catholic CHurch is simply one of many Churches that make up the Church of Christ.

It has been reiterated over and over again that the Catholic Church is the one Church Christ founded on earth. Perhaps now it will finally stick and end this madness once and for all.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

Introduction

The Second Vatican Council, with its Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, and its Decrees on Ecumenism (Unitatis redintegratio) and the Oriental Churches (Orientalium Ecclesiarum), has contributed in a decisive way to the renewal of Catholic ecclesiolgy. The Supreme Pontiffs have also contributed to this renewal by offering their own insights and orientations for praxis: Paul VI in his Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam suam (1964) and John Paul II in his Encyclical Letter Ut unum sint (1995).

The consequent duty of theologians to expound with greater clarity the diverse aspects of ecclesiology has resulted in a flowering of writing in this field. In fact it has become evident that this theme is a most fruitful one which, however, has also at times required clarification by way of precise definition and correction, for instance in the declaration Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), the Letter addressed to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Communionis notio (1992), and the declaration Dominus Iesus (2000), all published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The vastness of the subject matter and the novelty of many of the themes involved continue to provoke theological reflection. Among the many new contributions to the field, some are not immune from erroneous interpretation which in turn give rise to confusion and doubt. A number of these interpretations have been referred to the attention of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Given the universality of Catholic doctrine on the Church, the Congregation wishes to respond to these questions by clarifying the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions used by the magisterium which are open to misunderstanding in the theological debate.

RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS

First Question: Did the Second Vatican Council change the Catholic doctrine on the Church?
Response: The Second Vatican Council neither changed nor intended to change this doctrine, rather it developed, deepened and more fully explained it.

This was exactly what John XXIII said at the beginning of the Council1. Paul VI affirmed it2 and commented in the act of promulgating the Constitution Lumen gentium: "There is no better comment to make than to say that this promulgation really changes nothing of the traditional doctrine. What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation"3. The Bishops repeatedly expressed and fulfilled this intention4.

Second Question: What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

Response: Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"5, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.6 "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"7.

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church8, in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.9 Nevertheless, the word "subsists" can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the "one" Church); and this "one" Church subsists in the Catholic Church.10

Third Question: Why was the expression "subsists in" adopted instead of the simple word "is"?

Response: The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are "numerous elements of sanctification and of truth" which are found outside her structure, but which "as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity"11.

"It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Church"12.

Fourth Question: Why does the Second Vatican Council use the term "Church" in reference to the oriental Churches separated from full communion with the Catholic Church?

Response: The Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term. "Because these Churches, although separated, have true sacraments and above all – because of the apostolic succession – the priesthood and the Eucharist, by means of which they remain linked to us by very close bonds"13, they merit the title of "particular or local Churches"14, and are called sister Churches of the particular Catholic Churches15.

"It is through the celebration of the Eucharist of the Lord in each of these Churches that the Church of God is built up and grows in stature"16. However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches17.

On the other hand, because of the division between Christians, the fullness of universality, which is proper to the Church governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, is not fully realised in history18.

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery19 cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense20.

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, ratified and confirmed these Responses, adopted in the Plenary Session of the Congregation, and ordered their publication.

Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 29, 2007, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul.

William Cardinal LevadaPrefect

+ Angelo Amato, S.D.B.Titular Archbishop of SilaSecretary

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/20581.php?index=20581&lang=ge#TESTO%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

"The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth: because I give testimony of it, that the works thereof are evil."

2007-07-08T07:43:00.000-07:00

So I guess being hated by the world is just a sign of the truth, right?

I was looking around the media reports on the recent release of Summorum Pontificum and came across this poll on AOL's news site:

"He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."

"And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved."

Link

Motu Mania Celebrations!

2007-07-07T07:32:00.000-07:00

This video is just too good not to see. Special thanks to Fr. Finigan at The Hermeneutic of Continuity as well as Fr. Z at www.wdtprs.com